Attachment 4-Section M.docx

19AQMM22R0008

Attachment 4: SECTION M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M: Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR AWARD - BEST PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal received before the Request for Proposal (RFP) closing date/time established in this solicitation and use the results in the source selection decision. The source selection process will determine the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to satisfy the needs of the Government.

The Government will use the cost-technical tradeoff source selection process, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 (Tradeoff Process). The proposal offering the best value is the one that is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Such an offer may not necessarily be the one offering the lowest price or receiving the highest non-price rating. For this solicitation, all technical evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Award will not be automatically determined by numerical calculation or formula relationship between the non-price factors and price. As technical factors, when combined, become more equal, the evaluated price rises in importance and may become the determining factor. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. Failure to comply with all solicitation requirements may result in the offeror being removed from award consideration. The Government may reject, without consideration of price, any proposal that has been rated “Unacceptable” under any technical factor. Such proposal is considered technically unacceptable.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The Government reserves the right to reject an offer if one of the following conditions exists:

· Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents specified in Section L.

· Offeror submits a cost/price proposal that cannot be adequately explained or substantiated.

· Offeror cannot be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is feasible and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements successfully within the required schedule.

2. For the purposes of this solicitation, categorical terms used to describe different elements of an offeror’s proposal are defined below.

Significant Strength: A significant outstanding or exceptional aspect of Offeror’s proposal that exceeds the specified performance requirements in a way to benefit the Government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the Offeror’s process and greatly increases the likelihood of successful performance.

Strength: An aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk: The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration for risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

I. Volume I: Factor 1 – Technical Proposal Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical Subfactor as it applies requirements set forth in this solicitation and Statement of Work (SOW). The Technical Subfactors are as follows:

a. Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan and Key Personnel

b. Subfactor 2: Risk Mitigation Plan

c. Subfactor 3: Sample Task Order Key Personnel

d. Subfactor 4: Past Performance

The Technical Subfactors are listed in their order of importance, i.e., Subfactor 1 is of greatest importance, followed by 2, and so forth.

Note: To receive consideration for award, an overall rating of no less than “ACCEPTABLE” must be achieved for Factor 1 – Technical.

Subfactors 1-3 will be rated based on the following scale, which takes into account the collective number of strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, as defined above.

Subfactor 4 Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform solicitation requirements based on previous and current contract efforts. The Government may share a copy of the Past Performance Profile with the referenced customer to validate the offeror’s report. To facilitate the evaluation of past performance, the offeror shall ensure the accuracy of the information furnished on references (names, addresses, and phone numbers). Failure to provide accurate or complete reference information will have a negative impact on the evaluation of the offeror’s quote and may render it unacceptable.

The Government reserves the right to incorporate past performance information from commercial and Government sources and databases in its final rating determination for this factor. These sources may include, but are not limited to, Government audit reports, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and commercial sources (such as Dun and Bradstreet Reports). In the event other sources conflict with the Offeror’s past performance information, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to address the inconsistencies.

Consideration will be given to similarity of services performed in Central and South American – Mexico in particular; complexity; magnitude of effort; and schedule. The four levels of relevancy are as shown below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

The Performance Confidence Assessment chart below serves as the overall past performance rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be assigned reasonably will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance shall have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. It is unlikely that Government intervention will be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Little Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Government has a low expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Some Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

II. Volume II: Factor 2 – Price Proposal

The principal basis for evaluating price as a factor for award under this solicitation will be an evaluation of the reasonableness of the offerors’ respective overall proposed prices submitted in cell W97 in Pricing Table 4 (IDIQ Prices) in Section J’s Attachment 2 (Pricing Spreadsheet). The Government will conduct an evaluation to determine ultimately that the final agreed-to overall price from Pricing Table 4 is fair and reasonable. The Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR 15.404 to conduct the evaluation.

The Government will use the RFP-specified estimated FTEs, hours, and dollar amounts for price evaluation purposes only. The Government does not commit to order or payment of these quantities and dollar amounts, respectively.

However, the provisional billing indirect cost rates proposed in Pricing Table 1, ceiling indirect cost rates proposed in Pricing Table 2, NTE fully-loaded hourly labor rates proposed in Pricing Table 4, and profit percentage proposed in the Narrative will be used as the awarded pricing information if award is made without discussions, or will be used as the basis of negotiation if award is made with discussions.

The Government will evaluate offers for contract award purposes by adding, from Pricing Table 4, the total proposed price for all contract periods to the total proposed price for the six-month option to extend period. Evaluation of the six month option to extend period will not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

Unless an offer was deemed ineligible for award, the Government may adjust any overall proposed price which was calculated incorrectly, resulted from another applicable error(s), resulted from an applicable omission(s), or resulted from the offeror failing to comply with an applicable pricing instruction(s) identified in RFP Section L.D.(b) (Volume II: Factor 2, Price Proposal). Such adjusted price will be used as the evaluated price.

Offerors must submit all rates in USD. If offerors fail to submit proposals in USD, the Government will convert all local currency fully-loaded hourly labor rates to United States dollars by using the exchange rates at https://www.x-rates.com/ (2) in effect on:

(1) The date specified for receipt of proposals, if award is made without discussions; or

(2) The date specified for receipt of final proposal revisions, if award is made with discussions.