Attachment 0008 - Section M narrative 1.pdf

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP). The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Cost/Price and Past Performance. The Best Value, Trade-Off will be based on an integrated assessment of the Factors and Sub-Factors giving due consideration to the relative order of importance. For evaluation purposes the Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor, which is more important than Past Performance Factor. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined are more important than the Cost and Price factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than acceptable must be achieved under the Technical Sub-factors. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making the integrated assessment of the evaluation results, the Government will give due consideration to all factors and sub-factors in order of their relative importance. Offeror’s are warned that the Government may not necessarily make an award to the lowest cost Offeror or to the highest technically rated. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical capability rating if it determines that doing so would result in the best value to the Government. The Government will select for award the proposal that is most advantageous and represents the Best Value to the Government. It is the Government’s intention to award this effort without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). However, should discussions be necessary, final proposal revision submissions will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors as delineated below. Minimum Acceptability: If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the Offeror may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential. NOTE: ALL NON-

PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN COST/PRICE.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: The Technical factor - Knowledge, Experience and Technical Support

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be Time and Materials contract.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors 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. Technical factor: Knowledge, Experience and Technical Support. This factor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach to provide emergency and preventative support for the laboratory equipment specified within the PWS. A marginal level of overall technical approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning the requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on whether the Offeror, and/or any proposed subcontractor(s) and/or affiliates:

• Demonstrates their technical knowledge and experience with regard to a complete understanding of the technical needs set within the PWS.

Specifically, its degree of understanding Paragraph 3 of the PWS.

• Demonstrates the ability to schedule and provide routine, unscheduled and emergency maintenance within the specifications laid out in Paragraph 3 of the PWS.

• Demonstrates that the Offeror’s and/or subcontractors have the required personnel capable and certified to support the equipment listed within Paragraph 3 of the PWS.

• Demonstrates that the Offeror and/or subcontractors can provide the correct repair parts, materials and tooling to support Paragraph 3 of the PWS. In addition, be able to provide these items while working within the Governments schedule.

The Technical factor evaluation will employ the Combined Technical/Risk rating methodology (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The Technical Risk descriptions (Table 2) are provided for reference, but Risk will not be given a separate rating.

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.

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 not awardable.

3. Cost/Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line- Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs (Options 1-2) will not obligate the Government to exercise any option.

The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. Cost Realism Evaluation: A cost realism analysis will be performed on the cost-reimbursement CLINs to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s Technical proposal. The realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror’s Technical proposal. Therefore, the Offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. The offeror’s cost-reimbursement proposal and estimates will be traced from the Cost/Price proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the

TABLE 2- Technical Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

technical proposal. The Government will perform an evaluation of the technical elements contained within the Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal to perform the PWS. The findings of this evaluation will be incorporated into the cost realism evaluation.

The results of the cost realism evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. As part of the realism analysis, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed, the evaluated becomes the probable cost.

If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost.

b. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L instructions.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404- 1(g)(3)).

3) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

4) Business Systems: The Government will verify the adequacy of the

Offeror’s business systems.

5) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the

Offeror’s proposed total costs in CLINs (CLIN 0001, CLIN 1001 CLIN 2001).

4. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors including cost, schedule, performance, management of subcontractors and compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 50% percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 811210.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy, and quality.

RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance.

Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 3) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 4 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 4 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of ten (10) calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least five (5) business days prior to their discussion session.

Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.