Attachment 2 - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Attachment 2: Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL

This Combined Synopsis/Solicitation is set aside 100% for small business under NAICS 238990. The Government intends to award a Single Award, Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract. The Government intends to award a contract based upon a lowest price technically acceptable source selection in which competing offeror’s' technical proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as described below in paragraph 3.0 EVALUATION

FACTORS and acceptable past performance . All technically acceptable proposals proposal shall be treated equally except for their prices.

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. Proposal s 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) Award will only be made to an offeror that has no organizational conflict of interest (OCI) as defined in FAR 9.5. Offeror’s are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed r 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 shall not be considered for award.

(d) 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. Offers will be evaluated by the lowest priced offer first and if found acceptable and eligible for award no other offers will be evaluated.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposal listed below to determine the awardee. 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. Price (None)

2. Technical (None)

3. Past Performance (None)

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1.1 PRICE. (FACTOR 1)

The Government will evaluate the total proposed price of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001, for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 13.5

3.1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH. (FACTOR 2)

All aspects of the Offeror’s written technical proposal must be technically acceptable. Technical proposals will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with the criteria set forth in Attachment 10: Crane Specifications and Attachment 11: Personnel.

A finding of Unacceptable for any factor, including but not limited to failure to submit requested documents or information shall render the Technical portion as well as the entire proposal, as Unacceptable. All Unacceptable proposals will not be further evaluated.

3.1.3 PAST PERFORMANCE. (FACTOR 3)

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the offeror 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 recent past performance and by conducting a performance confidence assessment. Task orders (or recent contracts) are defined as those on which performance occurred within three (3) years from the date of solicitation release. 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.

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 4), if submitted.

The Government may also consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror or, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local Government agencies, Better Business

Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, the Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS) data base, and/or personal knowledge. 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

In determining the relevancy of past performance data, the following levels of relevancy as shown below in Table 1 will be used:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Table 1

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same 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.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The following levels of assessment will be used for each offeror’s past performance as shown below in

Table 2:

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Table 2

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

3.2 APPLICATION OF FACTORS

3.2.1 GENERAL

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.

(b) Offeror’s proposals shall be valid for 60 days.