Attachment 6 - SECTION M Evaluation of Offerors.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD. This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300, and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the best overall offeror, based upon an assessment of Technical and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to an offeror deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 (Contracting Qualifications), as supplemented, whose proposals conform 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 to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. The Contracting Officer will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection evaluation criteria in the solicitation (described below). 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 intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

2. DISCUSSIONS. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each offerors initial offer should contain the offerors best terms from a price and a technical standpoint. Although the Government intends to award without discussion, it reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the offeror's proposal that may change the rating of the offeror's proposal.

3. CLARIFICATIONS. In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Clarifications 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.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Price Factor from Project Factor 2: Technical Factor Subfactor 1:Gantt Chart (or Equal Document) Subfactor 2: Technical Approach Narrative Subfactor 3: Quantities of Materials

Award will be made to one of the offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

5. FACTOR 1: PRICE FACTOR. The offeror's price proposal, as described in Section L, will be evaluated as follows.

5.1. Offeror's price proposal will be evaluated as a one (1) job total price. The offeror's price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.2. The price proposal will be evaluated using the Project Price Proposal.

5.3. Total Evaluated Price. The Project will be evaluated for price.

6. FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL FACTOR. Each offeror's written technical proposal will be evaluated, based on the subfactors identified below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the solicitation and General Requirements and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror's proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

6.1. Subfactor 1 – Gantt Chart (or Equal Document): The offeror’s Gantt Chart will be evaluated to ensure that the offeror has a clear understanding of the work elements, milestones, tasks, and dependencies etc. included in the project and demonstrates a clear path to project completion. The Gantt chart will be evaluated on whether or not the offeror can complete the project within the proposed timeline.

6.2. Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach Narrative: The offeror’s Technical Approach Narrative will be evaluated to ensure that the offeror has a clear understanding of the scope of the project and if the offeror’s approach will meet the Government’s need. As well as a sound approach to executing the project.

6.3. Subfactor 3 – Quantities of Materials: The offeror’s Quantities of Materials will be evaluated to ensure that the quantities coincide with the offeror’s technical approach narrative to determine the need for and reasonableness of the proposed resources.

6.3.1. Bonding Capacity. The Offeror's proposal shall demonstrate the following:

6.3.1.1. Evidence that the offeror is able to obtain the maximum single award/task order performance and payment bonding capacity of $250,000and a minimum aggregate bonding capacity of $1M, backed by a bonding surety with a certified Department of Treasury Surety, as listed in FAR 28.202. The document(s) shall include the surety company's name, address, phone number, and points of contact.

6.4 Acceptable/Unacceptable Technical Rating. Each Technical subfactor will receive an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1 -- Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method excerpted below. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an acceptable rating in every technical subfactor.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

7. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

8. EVALUATION PROCESS.

8.1. Factors: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors.

8.2. Step 1: The Government shall order all proposals from lowest to highest price.

8.3. Step 2: The Government shall review two price proposals for completeness. The Contracting Officer may conduct clarifications to address the completeness. It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify the executed contract documentation and supporting documentation meet the requirements of Sections L & M of this solicitation.

8.4. Step 3: Evaluate Technical – If the proposal is determined to be complete in Step 2, the proposal shall be evaluated for technical acceptability. If either proposal is found technically unacceptable, the next lowest price proposal will be evaluated beginning with step 2. This process will continue until two proposals are found technically acceptable. In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is deemed technically unacceptable, it will be eliminated from competition.

8.5. Step 4: Evaluate Price – Once the proposal is found technically acceptable (Step 3), the proposal shall be evaluated for fair and reasonable pricing IAW 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), on the project based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP is the aggregate dollar amount for the project. If the proposed price is deemed fair and reasonable the proposal will be deemed eligible for award.

8.6. Step 7: Contracting Officer’s decision for Contract – Once best value offerors are deemed technically acceptable and price is evaluated and determined to be fair and reasonable, the offeror with the lowest price technically acceptable will be the assumed awardee.

8.7. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information, in the format specified by Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors.

8.8. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Exchanges 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.

8.9. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with a respective offeror. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.