Attachment 0006_Draft RFP_Basis of Award.pdf

BASIS OF AWARD

1. BASIS OF AWARD:

The Government will make one award based on the evaluation on the two-step selection process that includes three phases and four (4) factors: Technical Experience with Past Performance, Technical Approach, Program Management Approach, and Price.

Order of Importance:

Phase 1 of the evaluation process, Section 1 of the proposal: Technical Experience and Past Performance, is rated as acceptable or unacceptable. Only Offerors who are found to be acceptable will advance to Phase 2 of the evaluation process and submit Sections 2 and 3 of the proposal. Section 2 consist of Oral Presentations for the following factors Technical Approach and Program Management Approach. Section 3 is the pricing factor.

Phase 2 of the evaluation process, Section 2 of the proposal: Technical Approach and Program Management Approach are of equal importance and significantly more important than the Section 3, Price. Although price is not the most important element it could become a controlling factor as offers under the non-price factors tend to equalize. The Government shall evaluate all non-price factors in an adjectival manner. Under a best value analysis, the Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the offeror who submits the lowest overall evaluated price. The Government may reject any proposal that the Government views as unrealistic in terms of any of the evaluation factors. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the offerors proposal. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the offerors initial proposal should contain the offerors best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The U.S. Government will evaluate proposals submitted in response to this RFP as established in Instructions to Offerors and in accordance with FAR 15. The U.S. Government intends to make one (1) contract award to the responsible offeror conforming to the solicitation that will be most advantageous to the Government, considering the following: Technical Experience with supporting Past Performance, Technical Approach, Program Management Approach, and Price.

2. REJECTION OF OFFERS:

The Government may reject any proposal deemed unacceptable which:

a. Merely offers to perform work according to the RFP terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFP terms without support and elaboration as specified in the Basis of the Award, Attachment 0006 of this solicitation.

b. Reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the RFPs requirements due to submission of a proposal, which is unrealistically high or low in price and/or unrealistic in terms of technical commitments.

c. Contains any unexplained significant inconsistency between the proposed effort and price or cost, which implies the offeror has an inherent misunderstanding of the performance work statement, or (2) an inability to perform the resultant contract.

d. Is unbalanced across multiple tasks or CLINs. An unbalanced offer is one that has costs significantly higher or lower for one given CLIN versus another CLIN. There must be a direct relationship between the effort expended and its cost for each CLIN.

e. Does not meaningfully follow the Proposal Preparation Instructions specified in Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation.

3. RESPONSIBILITY:

Pursuant to FAR 9.103, the Contracting Officer will only place contracts with contractors that they determine to be responsible. Offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey on any and all offerors. The Government reserves the right to reject an offer that does not meet the standards of responsibility.

4. PHASE 1 EVALUATION (Acceptable/Unacceptable):

Evaluation Criteria for Technical Experience with Past Performance (Seven Page Limit).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s answers to the Questionnaire found at Attachment 0003 and the responses to these questions along with supporting documentation of Past Performance on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. If offeror is found to be unacceptable, the offeror will not move on to the Oral Presentations. In order for the Government to determine an Offeror Acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate performance experience with the process of using technical findings to arrive at a strategic assessment concerning the Army’s Organic Industrial Base (OIB).

The Government will evaluate the information submitted, including evaluation of contract references provided and research into Government databases on past performance (PPIRS, CPARS, etc.) to determine the following:

a. Services or deliverables were performed or still being performed anytime within three

(3) years of the issuance of this RFQ;

b. Offeror clearly demonstrates experience with the OIB and Army supply chain planning and inventory management strategies and processes.

c. Offeror clearly demonstrates experience assessing risks, assessing Army policy/strategy, where to invest and move resources, addressing complex requirements and timing. Clearly demonstrates experience in assessing technical detail, then quickly translating to action plans.

d. Offeror clearly demonstrates experience with analyzing logistics tools and demonstrates its experience with integrating this analysis and tools to improve OIB management and performance.

5. PHASE 2 - SECTION 2 EVALUATION - ORAL PRESENTATIONS (Tradeoff):

Technical Approach (oral presentation)

The Offeror shall be evaluated on its technical approach on the following:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to developing a comprehensive approach to assessing, developing and implementing efficient end-to-end business processes for LCMC management of and planning for OIB workload. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s approach is feasible to develop a product, which LCMC and Depot leadership can utilize for end-to-end process improvement.

The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s proposed approach with regard to developing strategies to achieve return on investment and cost savings as contrasted to current approaches used in LCMC and Depot management.

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to understand and assess the complexity of the OIB and the Offeror’s ability to provide value-stream mapping solutions.

Program Management Approach (oral presentation)

The Offeror shall be evaluated on the following:

a. The Government will evaluate to determine whether the Offeror’s proposed organizational structure and technical strategy demonstrates a sound understanding of the PWS requirements with responsibilities and functional relationships that fully support the requirements of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and feasibility of the Offeror’s proposed organizational chart and approach to assessing, developing and implementing efficient business processes aligned to PWS paragraphs 5.1 – 5.4, reporting responsibilities, and communication processes.

b. The Government will evaluate to determine whether the Offeror’s comprehensive strategy demonstrates that they possess the experience and capabilities to successfully manage, understand, and execute the requirements of the PWS.

c. The Government will evaluate to determine whether the Offeror’s comprehensive strategy demonstrates evidence that the proposed Key Personnel are qualified and possess the expertise, skills and knowledge required to successfully execute the requirements of the PWS.

6. PHASE 2 – SECTION 3 – EVALUATION – PRICE

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price as proposed on the Price Matrix. For evaluation purposes only, the Total Evaluated Price is the sum of the prices for all ordering periods.

The Government will review the Total Evaluated Price using one or more of Price Analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1.

As part of the price evaluation, the Government will review proposals to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, the Government may reject a proposal if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The resulting award will be a single IDIQ FFP contract. Price will be evaluated using price analysis techniques based on a comparison of competitive prices received in response to the solicitation and a comparison of proposed prices to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE).

The offeror shall utilize the Government-provided format found in Attachment 0003.

7. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. Phase 2 – Section 2 (Oral Presentations): Technical Approach and Program Management Approach factors:

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

3. Phase 2 – Section 3: Price Factor

For purposes of Price Evaluation:

Waiting on Pricing

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.