Attachment 3 - Evaluation Criteria.docx

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

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1. This is a competitive, subjective Trade Off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15. The Government will award a single award with the contractor whose written response is technically acceptable, in which competing offerors’ past performance information will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price.

1.2. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally, except past performance. Failure to meet any technical requirement shall result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the past performance confidence rating and total evaluated price (TEP). While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process is by nature subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the process.

1.3. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions with offerors based on the initial proposals submitted. Therefore, offerors are cautioned to submit their best proposal initially. However, discussions may be held and result in Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs). Formal responses to discussion items and FPRs will be considered in making the award decision. Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to technical, price, past performance, and all terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the offeror and the Government at the conclusion of discussions, if held. All offeror and team member/subcontractor information must be incorporated into one coherent proposal to be considered complete.

1.4. If at any time during the evaluation process it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to open and hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and FPRs will be considered in making the selection decision.

1.5. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.), rather it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

1.6. Below is a synopsis of the evaluation steps; the complete evaluation process is defined in more detail immediately following the summary.

2. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION:

2.1. The first (1st) step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices for all responsive proposals by Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP shall be the sum of contract line item numbers (CLINs) 0001, 0003, 1001, and 2001. The TEP will exclude prices for CLINs 0002, 1002, and 2002 on the Bid Schedule.

2.2. The evaluation team will then proceed to the second (2nd) step. In the 2nd step, the Government will evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability and assign “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating.

2.3. After technical evaluations conclude, the third (3rd) evaluation step begins. In step 3, all technically acceptable proposals will be evaluated for past performance confidence. The Decision Authority (DA) will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors which are (I) Price (II) Technical, and (III) Past Performance.

3.1. FACTOR I: PRICE:

The Government will evaluate all responsive proposals for price. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP.

3.1.1. Complete the Bid Schedule and the Supplemental Schedule, Attachment 4.

3.1.2. Total evaluated price (TEP) will be determined as the sum of CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001 (Missile Retriever Re-Power), and 0003 (Design) per the Bid Schedule.

3.1.3. Prices will be evaluated for completeness, fairness and reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Offers whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable may not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines if pricing is unbalanced.

3.1.3.1. Reasonableness: A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. It is expected that price reasonableness will be determined based on the comparison of each offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) to the TEPs of all evaluated technically acceptable proposals.

3.1.3.2. Unbalanced Pricing: The government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed contract line items that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the other proposed contracted line items (either of the offeror’s proposal or the same contract line items as proposed by other offerors). An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

3.2. FACTOR II: TECHNICAL:

3.2.1. The focus of the technical rating is on the offeror’s ability to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. The government may not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror’s proposal. The government will evaluate technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assign a rating at the subfactor level in accordance with Table 1 below. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an acceptable rating in each technical subfactor. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. An unacceptable rating in one or more of the technical subfactors will constitute an overall unacceptable rating for the technical evaluation.

3.2.2. Evaluators shall assign a rating as outlined below in Table 1.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

The proposals will be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Installation Design Review and Drawing Specification Plan

Subfactor 4: Equipment Requirements Subfactor 5: Quality Control Subfactor 6: Safety Assurance

3.2.3 Technical Subfactor 1 - Installation Design Review and Drawing Specification Plan:

Drawings and Specifications Plan submitted in Tab 1 must comply with requirements of the PWS. Specifically, both Drawings and Specifications require Licensed Professional Engineer (L.P.E.) seal and validation in order to be considered for technical evaluation. Submissions, which do not adhere to this standard, will receive an “Unacceptable” rating.

Offerors shall clearly demonstrate capability to meet the requirements of the PWS. The plan will be rated acceptable if it meets the following minimum requirements of PWS paragraph 4.2.

3.2.3.1 This can be demonstrated by either:

a. A plan for providing the blue prints of the Original Vessel Manufacturer;

OR

b. A plan for providing drawings which will be engineered, re-created or developed by or on behalf of the offeror and contains a Licensed Marine Architect with approval certification.

3.2.4 Technical Subfactor 2 - Sea Trials

3.2.4.1 Offeror shall propose a Sea Trial Plan that addresses PWS section 5.0.

3.2.5. Technical Subfactor 3 - Vessel Transit Plan

3.2.5.1 Vessel Transit Plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates the ability to comply with paragraph 4.3 of the PWS. The contractor shall provide a plan to accept responsibility for providing a certified crew, fuel, and all associated costs and risks during the delivery transit phase prior to work commencing and the return transit phase after the work is complete.

3.2.6. Technical Subfactor 4 – Equipment Requirements

3.2.6.1 The equipment proposed is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates the ability to meet all the design and performance specifications for the proposed equipment under Section 2.0.

3.2.7 Technical Subfactor 5 - Quality Control

3.2.7.1 The Quality Control Plan is acceptable when the offeror has provided an effective approach that adequately addresses requirements of the PWS in accordance with paragraphs 4.1, 5.1, and 9.1 to ensure services provided meet the performance objectives and thresholds identified in the PWS services summary. The plan shall address as a minimum:

a. The role and authority of the Primary Quality Control personnel.

b. Methods to be used for identifying and preventing defects before performance becomes unacceptable. Procedures used to identify, prevent and ensure non-recurrence of non-conforming services to include root cause analysis processes used and how corrective action plans will be developed.

3.2.8. Technical Subfactor 6 – Safety Assurance

3.2.8.1 The Safety Assurance is acceptable when the offeror has provided an effective approach that addresses requirements of the PWS in accordance with section 9.2.

3.3. FACTOR III: PAST PERFORMANCE:

3.3. In assessing performance, the evaluator may: (1) use data obtained from Air Force automated Past Performance Data Bases (i.e. CPARS and PPIRS); (2) use data provided by the offeror or obtained from other sources (questionnaires); (3) use data independently obtained from other sources; (4) rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; (5) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions; The Government reserves the right to obtain and evaluate past/present performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “Neutral Confidence”. An offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (i.e. the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information, as related to this acquisition, adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors)

3.4. Past performance will first be evaluated for recency

3.4.1. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last five (5) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation.

3.4.2. Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. The offeror shall identify what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable). The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the government.

3.4.3. Relevant past performance requires performance of Marine Vessel Re-Powers similar in scope, magnitude (dollar value), and complexity to the requirements defined in this solicitation.

3.4.4. As a result of the recency and relevancy evaluations, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating of “Substantial Confidence” “Satisfactory Confidence” “Neutral Confidence” “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” based on Table 2 below.

3.4.5 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Table 2