ATTACHMENT 2 - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL

This Combined Synopsis/Solicitation is an Unrestricted Procurement under NAICS 325510. The

Government intends to award a Single Award, Firm‐Fixed Price (FFP) contract. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The

Government shall determine best overall value on the basis of the following evaluation factors as described in Section 3.0 below. The Government shall evaluate each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the text herein and determine best overall value on the basis of the following evaluation factors as described below in paragraph 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS.

2.0 OFFER

The following conditions must be met in order to be eligible for award:

(a) The proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and conditions set forth in this solicitation and must meet all material solicitation requirements.

(b) Proposals must manifest the offeror’s assent, without exception or imposition of condition(s), to the terms and conditions of this solicitation, including attachments and documents incorporated by reference, and include material information required by the solicitation. Proposals that take exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, impose additional conditions, or omit material information required by this solicitation, will be considered unacceptable and therefore ineligible for contract award.

(c) The award decision will be based on the Government’s evaluation of each offeror’s complete proposal using the evaluation factors identified in Section 3.0 below. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government after evaluation based on the factors described herein. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the

Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR

2.101).

(d) Award will only be made to an offeror that has no organizational conflict of interest (OCI) as defined in FAR 9.5 or that the Government determines has provided a satisfactory mitigation plan in accordance with L‐209‐H009 herein. Offerors are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed Subcontractor which is deemed to have an OCI and for which an unsatisfactory mitigation plan has been proposed. An offeror that fails to identify a potential OCI or does not submit an OCI mitigation plan with their proposal shall not be considered for award.

(e) Award will only be made to an offeror determined by the Contracting Officer to be responsible in accordance with the standards contained in FAR 9.104‐1.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the factors contained in

Attachment 1 and listed below to determine the best value proposal. A proposal receiving an overall rating of Unacceptable in technical approach, no confidence in past performance, or if the price is considered unreasonable, will render it ineligible for award, regardless of the ratings received for the remaining evaluation factors.

Factors Subfactors

1. Technical Approach (None)

2. Past Performance (None)

3. Price (None)

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH. (FACTOR 1)

The Government shall evaluate each offeror’s technical approach proposal submitted in accordance with Attachment 1, Paragraph 3.0 Technical Approach and apply the adjectival rating described in paragraph 3.2.3 to: Technical Approach (Factor 1).

3.1.2 PAST PERFORMANCE. (FACTOR 2)

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the offeror and its subcontractors satisfied its customers in previous recent and relevant contracts and complied with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Government will evaluate past performance by determining recency and relevancy of the offeror’s and subcontractors’ recent past performance and by conducting a performance confidence assessment. “Recent performance” includes efforts within the past three (3) years, from proposal submittal date. “Relevant performance” includes contractual efforts to provide same or similar support services. Similar scope and complexity means having performed most of the types of support efforts identified in the PWS. Past Performance references that reflect projects with a similar scope and complexity to efforts described in this solicitation will be considered to have greater importance in the evaluation of this Factor. “Quality” means how well the offeror performed on past contracts. The

Government may contact each offeror’s customers to inquire about overall management efficiency, work quality, and record of forecasting and controlling direct and indirect costs.

The Government’s evaluation will take into account relevant information submitted by each offeror as part of its proposal including the Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 6), if submitted.

The Government may use other information available from Government sources, to evaluate an offeror’s or subcontractors’ past performance. The Government may also consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror or subcontractors, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases and/or the Government’s Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data base. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact other references than those provided by the offeror or subcontractors.

3.1.3 PRICE. (FACTOR 3)

The Government will evaluate the total proposed price of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001 and

0002 for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR Subpart 15.4.

3.2 APPLICATION OF FACTORS

3.2.1 GENERAL

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the factors contained in

Attachment 1 to determine the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. As demonstrated in their proposals, offerors shall be evaluated in terms of their ability to meet or exceed the program’s requirements stated in the performance work statement (PWS).

3.2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

The evaluation factors include: Technical Approach (Factor 1), Past Performance (Factor 2), and Price

(Factor 3). Of the three (3) factors, Factor 1, Technical Approach, is more important than Factor 2, Past

Performance; Factor 2, Past Performance, is more important than Factor 3, Price.

3.2.3 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the Technical Approach evaluation factors based on the offeror’s proposal and the solicitation. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

i. TECHNICAL APPROACH

The following adjectival ratings/definitions in the table below shall be used for evaluation of: Factor 1, Technical Approach:

ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITION

Outstanding

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

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.

Acceptable

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

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

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.

ii. PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three (3) 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. Per Attachment 1 paragraph 4.0, Offerors shall provide past performance references from the past three (3) years of the proposal submittal date.

RELEVANCE: The second aspect is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Sources of past performance information may include information provided by the offeror, information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, or any other sources available to the Government. Other sources include, but are not limited to, the Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting

System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee

Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. Relevancy ratings are based on the definitions below:

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: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into a

Performance Confidence Assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the

Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are as follows:

OVERALL CONFIDENCE RATING DESCRIPTION

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 factor 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.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements. This evaluation is based on past performance information and is a qualitative and not necessarily a quantitative measure.

4.0 SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

The Government will make a source selection decision based on the Tradeoff process in accordance with

FAR 15.101‐1 and decision process in FAR 15.308. The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal demonstrates the best value by exhibiting the greatest overall technical merit and past performance confidence assessment at a reasonable price. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). Accordingly, the Government may be willing to pay a reasonable premium for a proposal offering superior overall technical merit and past performance. Conversely, the Government may select a lower‐price, lower‐rated proposal if the

Government determines that the premium associated with the higher‐rated proposal is not justified. In making its best value determination the Government shall consider technical merit (i.e., all non‐price factors taken together) to be more important than the total evaluated price. However, the importance of total evaluated price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall technical merit and past performance confidence assessment of competing proposals.