Attachment 3_Evaluation Criteria.docx

W9124G25XLYSTER

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Basis for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is for Lyster Army Health Clinic at Fort Rucker, AL (formerly Fort Novosel) and is being competed as full and open under NAICS Code 561621 with a standard size of $25 million. All categories of small and large business concerns will be considered.

A. Source Selection Methodology: This is a competitive LPTA source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, and DFARS 215.3. The Government intends to award to the Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the Request for Proposal (RFP) and the Performance Work Statement (PWS), provides the overall best benefit to the Government and found to be technically acceptable and offering the lowest price to the Government. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices. Any proposal with an unacceptable technical rating will not receive further evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all RFP requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

B. Trade-Offs: Trade-off between cost/price and non-cost/price factors is not permitted. Inaccurate or Incomplete price proposals may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition

C. Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate the proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 – Technical Proposal (Volume I) Subfactor 1.A –Staffing Subfactor 1.B – Support Management Factor 2 – Price Proposal (Volume II)

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. Volume II, Factor 1 - Technical Factor

Technical Acceptability Factor. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. Each sub-factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any sub-factor that receives an unacceptable rating will result in an overall unacceptable rating in the evaluation for the technical factor and are not eligible for award. The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Detailed preparation instructions are included in Instructions to Offerors. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined

Note: A final rating of Unacceptable is ineligible for award.

Technical Proposal. Evaluation of the Technical Capability evaluation factor provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. To receive an acceptable rating for Technical Capability the offer must receive an acceptable rating for each subfactor identified below.

(a) Subfactor 1.A: Staffing. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s specific resources that will be used to satisfy the PWS requirements. The Offeror shall provide the following information:

· Element 1.A.1 – Qualifications of Personnel

· Element 1.A.2 – Plan to Backfill or Replace Certified Personnel as needed

· Element 1.A.3 – Status of Security Clearances for Personnel

· Element 1.A.4 – Status, Type, and Number of Certified Technicians on Staff

The Offeror shall describe a support management approach, methodology, plan, organization and process for the development and implementation of security services for Lyster Army Health Clinic; address the approach for providing accurate and timely performance information throughout the life cycle of the project; and provide a detailed strategy and solution to provide a state-of-the-art solutions.

(b) Subfactor 1.B: Support Management. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach to ensure adequacy and sufficiency of the response times as described in the PWS. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach/process/ability for how it ensures the accessibility of any needed replacement parts for functional continuity. The Offeror shall provide the following information:

· Element 1.B.1 – Availability of Ordering Replacement Parts

· Element 1.B.2 – Ability/Capability for Response Time

The Technical Subfactors will be evaluated based on the following:

· An assessment of the Offeror’s staffing plan to determine if the Offeror has adequately justified/explained how the staffing plan will be successful in the performance of contract requirements. The evaluation will include an assessment of the staffing plan to ensure that it provides adequate staffing to support the work required in the performance work statement.

· An assessment of the Offeror’s key personnel’s certifications and qualifications that meet or exceed the performance work statement requirements. To further determine whether the Offeror’s management illustrates the required certifications and qualifications for on-staff personnel for all systems as described in the performance work statement.

· An assessment of the Offeror’s support management plan to respond within the required times listed within the performance work statement for service calls and the ability to order Lenel replacement parts (Lenel certification required to order parts).

· An assessment of whether the Offeror has identified any subcontracting efforts and has complied with FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting.

The technical volume shall not exceed 40 pages (All documents). A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitation shall not be read and shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation or sent back to the Offeror.

B. Volume II, Factor 2 - Price Evaluation Factor. The Government will rank all offers determined to be technically acceptable by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

(A) Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer. The Offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of Base Year and four option year periods plus evaluation of the option to extend services under FAR clause 52.217-8 (see section B below for calculation).

(B) Evaluating the Option CLIN does not obligate the Government to exercise the Option. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract to an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base year and option year will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services. No pricing is requested and will not be evaluated if submitted for the 6-month period referenced in FAR clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. The Government will evaluate its option to extend services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 by adding six (6) months of the Offeror’s final option period price to the Offeror’s total price.

(C) In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(D) Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness; therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). However, if at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, Offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the contracting officer to determine price reasonableness.

(E) The Offeror’s price submission shall represent the Offeror's best efforts to respond to the RFP. Any inconsistency between proposed performance and price shall be explained in the submission. For example, if unique, innovative approaches are the basis for an unusually low price, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price shall be explained. If an Offeror proposes to absorb a portion of the price, the Offeror shall also explain the impact on the estimated price. Any significant inconsistency left unexplained may raise a fundamental question of the Offeror's understanding of the nature and scope of the work required in the task order, and of the Offeror's ability to perform the tasks within the fiscal constraints thereof. This may be just cause for rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof for price credibility rests with the Offeror.

(End of Section)