Attachment 2 - Final EO M 123025.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1.0. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a Best Value Full Trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 20 August 2022, and the Department of Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), Air Force Mandatory Procedures

5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Government FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

The Government will select the best overall offers, based upon an assessment of the evaluation stated below. Contracts may be awarded to the Offerors who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factor and small business participation, to represent the best value to the Government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right not to award any contract under this solicitation.

1.1 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions with offerors within the competitive range, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors are advised to give an offer suitable for an award decision in the initial proposal. The Government does not intend to use non-government advisors or evaluators in this source selection. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) shall be considered in making the source selection decision. If FPRs are required, the Government will determine if written discussions are required.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.2 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award

1.3 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one contract to a responsible, qualified offeror who best conforms to the RFP requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the submission instructions), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.4 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. All five technical subfactors are of equal importance.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following subfactors will be used to evaluate offeror’s proposals for technical acceptability and risk. The Government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability using the ratings below. The offeror will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating for each subfactor. The subfactor ratings will not be rolled up to the factor level. A proposal rated as unacceptable, will not be considered for award.

TABLE 1 – FACTOR 1 PROPOSAL RATINGS

TABLE 1 – FACTOR PROPOSAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable The offeror meets the measure of merit as stated under each Subfactor.

Unacceptable The offeror does not meet the measure of merit as stated under each Subfactor.

The government will also evaluate the risk of the offeror’s proposals. Each proposal will be evaluated for Performance Risk for each technical subfactor. Offerors will be evaluated and rated how the recency, relevancy and depth of experience will potentially affect the performance risk of the program.

Depth refers to the level of expertise or specialization an offeror has in a particular subfactor. Specifically, depth reflects the level of understanding and mastery of a specific skill or field based on experience. Risk is manifested by the identification of strengths and weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance as it is related to the type and extent of the offeror’s experience. Risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 2.

TABLE 2 – FACTOR PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weaknesses but have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

TABLE 2 – FACTOR PERFORMANCE RISK RATINGS

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal is rated technically unacceptable or has a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

2.1 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 1: Wizards of Wright!

Description: The Technical Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s performance of Wizards of Wright! (WOW!) type activities.

Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the Offeror describes their recent and relevant experience in developing and executing STEM curriculum, meeting national math and science standards.

2.2 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 2: FIRST LEGO LEAGUE CHALLENGE

Description: The Technical Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s performance of High School Robotics FIRST Tech challenge & League type activities.

Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the offeror describes their recent and relevant experience in developing and executing statewide robotics programs, with multiple concurrent events.

2.3 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 3: Audio Visual and Web Development Specialist

Description: The Technical Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s performance in Audio Visual and Web Development.

Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the offeror describes their recent and relevant experience in developing and producing STEM videos and web content.

2.4 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 4: STEM Apprentices and Junior Apprentices

Description: The Technical Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s performance hiring STEM apprentices and junior apprentices.

Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the offeror describes their recent and relevant experience in hiring and managing STEM students.

2.5 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 5: STEM Camps, Events, and Activities

Description: The Technical Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s performance of STEM camp, events, and activities.

Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the offeror describes their recent and relevant experience in planning, developing and executing STEM camps, events, and activities.

3.0 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (SBSP)

The Government will assess the extent to which the offeror proposes acceptable use of Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns in the performance of the proposed contract. The extent of the commitment to such firms, including the proposed percentages of the acquisition, the probability that the offeror shall satisfy the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and achieve the levels of Small Business Participation identified in their proposal shall be considered.

The Other than Small Business offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be assessed as acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Alternate II, FAR 19.704, FAR 19.705, and DFARS 219.704.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement is mandatory for award and the plan shall be incorporated into any resultant contract.

a. The offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan meets the requirements of FAR 52.219-9.

b. The offeror proposes to meet or exceed goals shown in Table L-5.1 or provides substantiated rationale for proposed goals which are lower than those in the table.

c. The offeror provides methodology (e.g., use of SB industry days, databases, tools, etc.) for meeting the offeror’s proposed goals.

4.0 PRICE

4.1 Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1[g]) may not be considered for award. Evaluation of Options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. However, if Options are exercised, they will be exercised at the proposed prices. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the base period and all option year periods. The TEP will be utilized to evaluate Offerors for this acquisition. All prices shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

4.2 Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s TEP based on the following:

(1) Completeness – The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto.

(2) Reasonableness – For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

(3) Unbalanced pricing – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.