Attachment 2 - Basis for Award.pdf

FA4528-23-Q-BM03

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

A. The Government intends to award this competitive best value acquisition, to the responsible offeror whose quote, conforming to the Request for Quote (RFQ), will be the most advantageous to the Government considering price and other factors (technical and past performance). The Government intends to award to the offeror with the best overall value to the Government. This acquisition is conducted IAW FAR Part 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services) and FAR Part 13 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures). The Government intends to award a firm-fixed price contract to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1.

B. The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial quotes, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the CO to determine the reasonableness of the price. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the RFQ terms and conditions and provide complete rationale. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or quote revisions. Quotes should be submitted initially on the most accurate and favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the CO to be necessary. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss and/or revise their quotes. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interest.

C. If, during the evaluation process, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses and/or any revision(s) to an Offeror’s quote will be considered in making the award decision. If the Offeror's quote was evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the revised quote are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror's quote be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

D. Offerors are required to meet all RFQ requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the RFQ may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the RFQ terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the quote therefore, ineligible for award.

EVALUATION PROCESS

A. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each quote. Any factor or subfactor determined to be unacceptable will render the entire quote ineligible for award.

1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Limited to no more than fifteen (15) pages.

Technical Proposals will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis by sub-factors.

a. Sub-Factor 1: Quality Control Plan

Description: Offeror shall submit a Quality Control Plan that addresses all requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The plan must address methods to be used to prevent re-occurrence of previously identified/repaired defects. The plan shall also include procedures to identify unfavorable performance trends, problem areas, and the corrective actions that would be taken.

b. Sub-factor 2: Management/Manpower Plan

Description: The offeror shall provide a management staffing approach that adequately provides personnel qualified to meet the requirements of the PWS.

This should include retention of personnel, organization structure, and related commercial and/or government experience supporting Vertical Transportation Equipment (VTE) Maintenance, Repair, and Inspection Services. The offeror shall submit a realistic approach to their hiring and retention process that enables contract performance at Minot AFB, ND. This plan shall include a description of the processes the offeror will take to fulfill all requirements outlined in the PWS, and all applicable industry standards sufficient to perform the required VTE Maintenance, Repair, and Inspection Services.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Quote meets the requirements of the RFQ

Unacceptable Quote does not meet the requirements of the RFQ

2. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE - Limited to no more than six (6) pages.

Past Performance will be rated using a confidence assessment scale based on the overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance efforts.

a. A Past Performance Information Form (PPIF), Attachment 5, is provided with the RFQ for offerors to send to a maximum of three (3) references of their choice. PPIF references who have returned the questionnaires will be used in the past performance evaluation. Please note that the PPIF will only be accepted if it’s received directly from the reference, and the PPIF must also be received by the offeror due date and time.

b. The US Government will consider and evaluate offerors past performance information, to include the PPIF, which are deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this requirement. The Government will also use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources to assess performance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use information provided by the offerors and information obtained from other sources in the development of the performance assessments. Recent and Relevant is defined in the sub paragraphs below:

i. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this RFQ. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the provided services performed under those contracts relate to those required by this RFQ. Relevant past performance demonstrates VTE Maintenance, Repair, and Inspection Services experience as defined by the North American Industry System code (NAICS Code) 238290 with a total contract dollar value of at least $250,000.00 and having similar complexity and function, utilizing trades relevant to those required by this RFQ.

The past performance information forms (PPIFs) and information obtained from sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

c. Teaming arrangements are characterized by two or more business entities that are working together under the representation of one of the existing business entities for the duration of a contract. A teaming arrangement is not a formal merger of two or more business entities. The Government recognizes the validity and integrity of teaming arrangements as detailed in FAR Subpart 9.6. All offerors are encouraged to review FAR Subpart 9.6 to acquaint themselves with its details. Since the Government can only determine the responsibility of the prime contractor per FAR 9.604(b), in accordance with FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, offerors must identify in their offer any teaming arrangement to be considered and completely identify the relationships/responsibilities of the teaming members.

d. Joint ventures are characterized as two or more business entities that have been merged to create one business entity with equal responsibility during the course of the contract. If this is a first time Joint Venture, please submit past/present performance information on a maximum of three (3) projects total by any business entity in the arrangement as identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

3. FACTOR 3: PRICE PROPOSAL

a. Complete Attachment 7 - Price Schedule; an authorized official of the firm must sign the Price Schedule document. The offeror shall complete the Offeror Price Schedule by entering in prices for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), including all option years. Insert proposed unit and extended prices for each Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs.

You MUST include unit prices and extended prices on all FFP CLINs. The extended amount must equal the whole dollar unit price multiplied by the number of units.

b. The Option to Extend Services Clause 52.217-8 will also be evaluated for the Offerors’ proposed prices. The 52.217-8 extension of services will be added/calculated to the offeror’s price proposal by utilizing 6 months of pricing from the final option year.

Unit prices would remain unchanged. In addition, if the option were exercised after award, the actual prices used in the extension will be the prices from the previous option period.

c. The Offeror’s price will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balance.

An Offeror whose price is determined to be unfair, unreasonable, or unbalanced may not be considered for award. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of fair and reasonable pricing. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information may be required to support the proposed price.

d. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line item numbers (CLINs) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced CLINs. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each Offeror's response to the pricing structure in the Price Schedule.