Attachment 17 - Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

FA488720Q0005 Attachment 17: Evaluation Factors for Award, 16 June 2020

2 - ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

2. GENERAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This acquisition will utilize the Best Value source selection method to make an integrated assessment award decision as permitted by FAR 13.106-1(a)(2). Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the Government. The government will conduct a tradeoff analysis of the non-price and price factors. This analysis may result in award to an offeror who may not have offered the lowest price. In making this comparison the Government is more concerned with obtaining accpetable Technical Capability (Factor I) and superior Past Performance (Factor II), rather than awarding to the lowest priced proposal. Inherent in a best value evaluation is the fact the Contracting Officer, while always mindful of price, encourages strengths and/or innovative approaches. Accordingly, to the extent an offeror provides strengths to its proposal, the offeror may receive a higher rating. However, Offerors are advised that the Government may give a higher rating only if the strength(s) represent a real value or benefit to the Government.Offerors should propose their best solution to meet the stated requirements.

2.1. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

2.1.1. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

2.1.2. PAST PERFORMANCE

2.1.3. PRICE

2.2. The Government intends to award without interchanges, however reserves the right to: (a) clarify certain aspects of an offerors quote or resolve minor or clerical errors, (b) enter into limited exchanges (to establish a competitive range), or (c) conduct interchanges (after establishment of a competitive range) if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines they are necessary. Quotes rated as "Technically Unacceptable," either before or after discussions (in the event the CO determines discussions are in the best interest of the Government) will be eliminated from the competition and receive no further consideration.

2.3. The Government will consider an offeror's quote unawardable if such offeror fails to comply with all Instructions listed in FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS, FAR 52.212-1 Addendum instructions, and Attachment 12 – Exhibit Line Item Pricing Matrix Sheet contained within this solicitation. This includes, but is not limited to: quote submission procedures, quote volume organization, omission of requested documents, inclusion of circumscribed identifying information, or incomplete documents submitted with the quote.

2.4. Each offer will be assigned an identifying number which will be used in lieu of the offeror's name during technical evaluation. (Reference FAR 52.212-01 Instructions to Offerors, Volume I:

Technical Quote, Addendum)

2.5. Offers will be ranked from lowest to highest total evaluated price (TEP). Any quote with unbalanced pricing may indicate a lack of understanding of the requirements and may be eliminated from further consideration.

2.5.1. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will use the Independent Government Cost Estimate and similar historical acquisitions to determine if each proposed contract line item price is significantly over or understated.

2.5.2. All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If cost or price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall --

2.5.2.1. Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and

2.5.2.2. Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance.

2.5.2.3. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.6. The two lowest-priced quotes with balanced and reasonable pricing will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

2.7. A technical review team composed of key government personnel, who are experts in their respective disciplines, will use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the quote. Technical quotes shall be rated either Acceptable or Unacceptable.

2.8. In order to be rated "Technically Acceptable", the offer must have an "Acceptable" rating in each and every sub-factor. If neither of the first two lowest-priced quotes is determined to be technically acceptable, the next lowest-priced quote will be evaluated for technical acceptability. This process will continue until two quotes are rated Technically Acceptable.

2.9. When two quotes are rated technically acceptable, with balanced and reasonable pricing, and determined to be in the “Competitive Range” the evaluation will process will then move to the Past Performance Factor. The quote with the highest rated Performance Confidence Rating may be selected as the apparent awardee. That quote will be determined to represent the best value for the Government. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

2.10. If interchanges are held after a competitive range determination, the CO will conclude those exchanges and each offeror, still within the competitive range, shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Quote Revision by a common cutoff date and time, as established by the Contracting Officer. If the additional information, submitted timely, establishes technical acceptability, it shall be so rated. Otherwise, the quote shall be rated technically unacceptable.

2.11. Additionally, if no offers are rated technically acceptable, the CO has the discretion to cancel the solicitation in lieu of conducting discussions. In this case, the Government is under no obligation to release a new Solicitation.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

Quotes will be evaluated against the following factors/subfactors:

3.1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

3.1.1. Each technical subfactor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned a rating on whether the quote meets the solicitation requirements. Extra credit will not be assigned for exceeding the acceptable/unacceptable subfactor criteria. A rating of "Acceptable" will be required in all subfactors to be eligible for award.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

3.1.2. The following subfactors will be evaluated to determine technical acceptability:

3.1.2.1. Subfactor 1: Technical Quote Questionnaires (TQQs)

3.1.2.1.1. Description: Offerors shall complete the TQQs in the following Attachments and submit with their quotes:

3.1.2.1.1.1. Attachment 2 – Appendix A – Modular Cabinets – Modular Drawer Storage Cabinet TQQ

3.1.2.1.1.2. Attachment 3 – Appendix B – Bin Shelving – Bin Shelving TQQ

3.1.2.1.1.3. Attachment 4 – Appendix C – Pallet Rack – Pallet Rack TQQ

3.1.2.1.1.4. Attachment 5 – Appendix D – Rider Reach – Rider Reach Vehicle TQQ

3.1.2.1.2. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides completed TQQs in accordance with FAR 52.212-01, as tailored within this solicitation and the responses demonstrate capabilities to provide mandatory requirements set forth in the Cover Purchase Description (PD) and all Appendices.

3.1.2.2. Subfactor 2: Commercial Literature/Cut Sheets

3.1.2.2.1. Description: Offerors shall provide commercial literature/cut sheets that depict/describe the specific equipment that will be provided.

3.1.2.2.2. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the literature/cut sheets are provided in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, as tailored within this solicitation and thoroughly describe/depict the characteristics of the specific equipment required to meet the requirements of the PD and Appendices and the methodology proposed.

3.1.2.3. Subfactor 3: Proposed Schedule

3.1.2.3.1. Description: Offerors shall provide their proposed methodology and schedule for accomplishing the objectives in the Cover PD and Appendices.

3.1.2.3.2. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the proposed schedule depicts a logical progression of defined objectives, events, and submittals and have included steps which are relevant and required to complete the work in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, as tailored within this solicitation and are equal to or less than the Not-to-Exceed Period of Performance for each Exhibit Line Item as identified in Attachment 12 – Exhibit Line Item Pricing Matrix.

3.2. FACTOR 2: PRESENT/PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 2 – Present/Past Performance Grading Criteria

3.2.1. Each offeror will be first evaluated for relevancy. The relevancy rating will then be incorporated in the confidence rating. The more relevant the past performance data submitted, the higher the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform.

3.2.2. The assessment of offeror's present/past performance will be used by the government as a means to evaluate the relative capability of the offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the Cover PD and Appendices and as a measure of performance risk for contract award. The government’s assessment of performance risk is not intended to be the product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror’s performance on a list of contracts, but rather the product of subjective judgment of the Government after it considers all available relevant and recent information.

3.2.3. The government intends to verify past performance information on contracts provided by the offerors in the Attachment 14 – Present/Past Performance Information and Attachment 15 – Present/Past Performance Questionnaires documents. The government may contact some or all of the references. Evaluation of a vendor's past performance will be accomplished in an efficient and minimally burdensome fashion. It will be based on (1) The contracting officer's knowledge of and previous experience with the supply or service being acquired; (2) Customer surveys, and past performance questionnaire replies submitted by offeror accordance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items; (3) The Government-wide Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at www.ppirs.gov; (4) Any other reasonable basis; and/or (5) Past performance history in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) for the FSC and PSC of the supplies being purchased; and in the case of a supplier without a record of relevant past performance history in SPRS for the FSC or PSC of the supplies being purchased, the supplier may not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable for its past performance history.

3.2.4. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the government will not evaluate the offeror favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Such offerors will receive a neutral rating for past performance. However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant past performance history, while rated Neutral in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the government, and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposals of other offerors.

3.2.5. Following the evaluation of relevancy, the government will then evaluate offerors for confidence. These ratings incorporate the Relevancy rating. Because the definition for confidence includes the Relevancy rating, the adjective Confidence rating will be used for the overall Past Performance rating. In determining Confidence, the Government shall consider how well the contractor has performed on previous contracts in areas such as timeliness, quality, price control, and customer satisfaction.

3.2.6. Each offeror shall submit past performance that can be given a rating for both Relevancy and Confidence or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. If the offeror does neither of the foregoing, the proposal may not be eligible for award.

3.2.7. Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

3.2.8. Factor II Grading Criteria – Past Performance Confidence:

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments

3.2.9. Definitions

3.2.9.1. Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or government's confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation's requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

3.2.9.2. Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is defined as active contract performance during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort.

3.2.9.3. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

3.2.9.4. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which the offeror's proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased price or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.2.9.5. Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the government during contract performance.

3.3. FACTOR 3: PRICE

3.3.1. A quote's Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined by the sum of all separately priced ELINs (except the Data ELIN) as presented on the SF 1449 and the Attachment 12 – Exhibit Line Item Pricing Matrix Sheet. If separate CLIN, ELIN prices AND a TEP (as applicable) are not included, or are not clearly stated, miscalculated and/or understandable, the offer will be rejected as non-responsive.

3.3.2. The contract quote prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106-3(a).

3.3.3. CLIN prices will be evaluated for balance. Unbalanced pricing is grounds for rejection of a quote. Per FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more exhibit line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze each offeror's proposed price for each exhibit line item for balance to determine if the proposed contract exhibit line item price is significantly over or understated. The Government will use the Independent Government Cost Estimate and similar historical acquisitions (in lieu of price realism analysis) to determine if each proposed contract exhibit line item price is significantly over or understated.

3.3.4. All offerors must be registered in SAM prior to submission of quotes. Any offeror that is not registered will not be considered for award. If offeror is registered in SAM, the offeror must enter, complete, review and/or verify (within the last 12 months) the Representations and Certifications applicable to Commercial Acquisitions (Reference FAR 52.212-3) for currency, accuracy and completeness. This includes having the applicable size standard (NAICS Code) referenced in this RFQ included in the offeror’s profile. Failure to do so may result in the quotation not being considered for award.