Attachment 3 Evaluation Factors.pdf

Solicitation 140D0420R0038 Attachment 3-Evaluation Factors for Award

Attachment 3

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made only after agreement has been reached on all terms and conditions of the resultant contract and on a fair market price for the services to be acquired. The Government reserves the right to award one (1) contract on the basis of the initial offer received, without discussions.

This is a competitive, best value trade-off source selection that will be conducted in accordance with

(IAW) with FAR Part 15 and as supplemented by the Department of the Interior Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DIARS). The procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 “Acquisition of

Commercial Items” and FAR Part 15 “Contracting by Negotiation” apply to this acquisition. Therefore, evaluations will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and supplements thereto. It is the

Government’s intent is to award without discussions. To arrive at a selection decision, the Contracting

Officer will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described in this solicitation.

The Government will assess each offeror's proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors in

Attachment 3, Evaluation Factors for Award. This may result in an award being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced offeror(s) where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors. The

Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award one (1) contract based on initial offers, without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

(a) The Government will evaluate all proposals received against the evaluation factors listed below.

(b) Evaluation Factors and Relative Importance. The evaluation factors listed are of equal importance: (1) Technical and Management Approach and (2) Past Performance. When combined, all factors are approximately equal to price.

(c) Compliance with RFP: Each offer will be evaluated to determine its acceptability. An offer will be considered acceptable when it manifests the offeror's assent, without exception or imposition of condition, to the terms and conditions of this RFP, including attachments and documents incorporated by reference.

An offer that takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of this RFP, imposes additional conditions, or omits material information required by this RFP may be considered to be unacceptable.

(d) The evaluation of Proposals will be accomplished through an independent technical and price review, and evaluated on the merit and relevance of the proposal as it relates to the specific requirements and objectives for this RFP. The basis for selecting proposals for award shall be the following Evaluation

Criteria in equal order of importance:

1. Technical and Management Approach

2. Past Performance

3. Price

It is anticipated that a proposal that adequately addresses the above listed evaluation criteria will result in the successful attainment of the Government’s acquisition objectives.

The evaluation criteria are described below:

Factor 1: Technical and Management Approach

The extent to which the Contractor demonstrates an understanding of all tasks described in the PWS and clearly explains its technical and management approach of the work to be performed.

a) Provides a labor mix that demonstrates an understanding of the requirement, and the ability to successfully execute the tasks outlined in the PWS. In addition, the Offeror provides a staffing summary that details the proposed contractor staff’s experiences and qualifications that conform to all of the requirements established in the PWS.

b) Resumes of all Key Personnel meet the criteria listed in the PWS. Knowledge and experience are clearly shown in resumes of all Key Personnel to be utilized in the performance of this requirement and their proposed role leading significant areas of the operation. At minimum, the contractor provided resumes for the following personnel:

a. Project Manager

b. Information Technology Specialist IV (Program Manager)

c. Information Technology Specialist III (AIX Systems Specialist)

d. Information Technology Specialist III (Health System Application Specialist)

e. Information Technology Specialist III (Virtualization and Cloud Specialist)

f. Information Technology Specialist IV (Windows Server Administrator)

Factor 2: Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by the Offeror’s three references and data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System reports as available through the Past Performance Retrieval System and/or FAPIIS. The Government is not limited to these resources.

The Government will evaluate the performance of the efforts (that meet the recency and relevancy criteria) in order to determine the Government's overall level of confidence in the

Offeror's ability to successfully perform the required effort.

The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in an Offeror’s performance will be considered.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The following performance ratings will be utilized:

Table 1 – Performance Ratings

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

Acceptable Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Unacceptable Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Once all data has been gathered for each effort evaluated, and the team has assigned a relevancy and performance rating, an overall confidence rating will be assigned to Factor 2. The confidence ratings that will be utilized by the team are as follows:

Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessment

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.

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.

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

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.

Factor 3: Price

Price will be evaluated based on a determination that the labor hours and rates and mix of labor supporting the Firm-Fixed-Price is commensurate with an acceptable level of risk in the performance of the requirement, and whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable to perform the requirement in relationship to the proposed solution.

To account for the possible use of the six-month option period permitted under 52.217-8, the Government will take the price for the final option period, prorated to a six month value, and add it to the sum of the base plus all option periods. This amount will be the total evaluated price.

Overall proposal evaluation will be based on an assessment of the best value to the Government based on the aforementioned criteria. Award will be made based on this proposal evaluation, funds availability, and other programmatic considerations.