Attachment 3 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award (Next-Gen Innovators).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 Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS), Department of War (DoW) Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the Government RFO Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an assessment of the evaluation stated below. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the RFO, 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 factors 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 NEGOTIATIONS

The Government intends to award without negotiations but reserves the right to establish a competitive range to continue negotiations with a group of evaluated proposals that the contracting officer determines are best suited for further negotiation. Offerors are advised to give an offer suitable for an award decision in the initial proposal. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold negotiations, 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 negotiations are required.

If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time negotiations 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 requirements. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award https://www.acquisition.gov/

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 a lower performance risk 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.

Offeror’s proposal must be rated acceptable in all subfactors to be considered for award.

Performance Risk is significantly more important than Price. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal in two phases.

2.1 PHASE 1: The Government will evaluate proposals against the SubFactors listed below for 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 in any subfactor 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.

2.1.1 SUBFACTOR 1: Wizards of Wright!

Description: The 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 and substantiates their recent and relevant experience in developing and executing STEM curriculum.

2.1.2 SUBFACTOR 2: FIRST LEGO LEAGUE CHALLENGE

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

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

2.1.3 SUBFACTOR 3: Audio Visual and Web Development Specialist

Description: The 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 and substantiates their recent and relevant experience in developing and producing STEM videos and web content.

2.1.4 SUBFACTOR 4: STEM Apprentices and Junior Apprentices

Description: The 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 and substantiates their recent and relevant experience in hiring and managing STEM students.

2.1.5 SUBFACTOR 5: STEM Camps, Events, and Activities

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

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

2.2 PHASE 2: The Government will evaluate the risk of the offeror’s proposals. Each proposal will be evaluated for Performance Risk for each subfactor above. Offerors will be evaluated and rated how the recency, relevancy and depth of their experience will potentially affect the performance 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, manifested by the identification 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 – RISK RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, 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 a 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.

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

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

3.0 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT

3.1 The Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) Factor is an evaluation of the offeror’s level of commitment to small business utilization for the effort to be performed.

3.2 The Offeror shall submit a complete Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) IAW the instructions in Section L, 4.2.

3.3 Offerors will receive an overall SBPCD Rating in accordance with the ratings defined in Table 2. If an Offeror’s proposal receives a SBPCD Factor Rating of Unacceptable the proposal is ineligible for award.

TABLE 3 – FACTOR 2 PROPOSAL RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable The offeror submits an acceptable SBPCD IAW Section L 4.2.

Unacceptable The offeror did not submit an acceptable SBPCD IAW Section L 4.2.

4.0 PRICE

4.1 GENERAL: The Government will evaluate the Price proposal for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness (3) unbalanced pricing and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.2 COMPLETENESS: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. If not complete and in compliance, the proposal may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

4.3 REASONABLENESS: The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in RFO 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in RFO 15.404-1. For additional information see RFO 31.201-3.

4.4 UNBALANCED PRICING: The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW RFO 15.404-6. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the Offeror.

4.5 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror's proposed prices for the base period, option years, and Extension of Services for all CLINs.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Offerors should follow the instructions in the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet for inputting prices in each tab.

5.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

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