Attachment 7 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award Clause List

M.1 Evaluation Factors for Award

Basis for Contract Award. This acquisition will utilize Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures to make an integrated assessment for an award decision. No tradeoffs will be made. Contract award will be made to the LPTA Offeror who is determined responsible in accordance with the Acquisition Management System (AMS), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to be acceptable.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Offerors are not to assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal if Government evaluators identify omissions or lack of detail. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary.

M.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award any contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

M.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, to include failure to adequately address a significant portion of the requirements, contract terms and conditions, or unreasonable pricing when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.4 Elimination from Competition

During the evaluation process, the SSO may determine to eliminate one or more Offerors from the competition. This determination can be based on any single evaluation factor or a combination of factors. An Offeror may be eliminated from competition following initial proposal evaluation, after discussions (if necessary), or prior to submission of any proposal revisions. Offerors eliminated from the competition may request a post-award debriefing in accordance with AMS 3.2.2.3.1.4.

M.5 Evaluation Factors

The source selection evaluation shall be conducted based on two (2) evaluation factors:

Factor 1- Past Performance Information Factor 2 - Languages Provided Factor 3 - Turnaround Time for Translations

These factors are of equal weight and importance. Ratings of "ACCEPTABLE" or "UNACCEPTABLE" are considered to be objective ratings and are to serve as merely guides for decision making. The SSO is responsible for independently determining if the lowest priced, technically acceptable vendor has proposed a fair and reasonable price and is otherwise eligible for award. Trade-offs are not permitted. Offerors must be rated "ACCEPTABLE" on all factors to be considered technically acceptable.

Factor 1 – Past Performance Information Factor: Demonstrate the experience of offeror and/or proposed team, including sub-contractors, on projects that are the same/similar to that described in the Civil Aviation Registry Translation Services Statement of Work (SOW) for the Civil Aviation Registry Translation Services.

The Offeror shall complete a minimum of two (2), but no more than four (4), "Past Performance Experience Information" forms, attached to the SIR (Section J, Attachment 3 in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete. All projects submitted must have been underway or completed within the last 5 years through the closing date identified on the SIR. Each project provided must be valued at or over $15,000.00. If the Offeror does not have prior prime contracts to cite, then the Offeror may cite instances on which it has served as a primary subcontractor.

At least two of the maximum four forms submitted must contain all information required.

If any of the information required is not included in at least two forms submitted, then the Offeror will be considered non-responsive and evaluated as unacceptable.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government's Technical Evaluation Team will review the project experience of the offeror, including subcontractors, on projects provided in response to Factor 1. Offerors must meet all of the following minimum acceptability standards to receive an "ACCEPTABLE" on this factor:

• Offeror must have two (2) projects that are same/similar to that of the work required in the project specifications and this solicitation; AND

• Each project submitted must be valued at or over $15,000.00; AND

• Projects submitted must have been completed, or underway, within the last 5 years through the closing date of the SIR.

• At least two of the Past Performance Experience Information Forms provided must be rated as acceptable by respondents. Multiple unacceptable responses could result in being determined unresponsive and possibly eliminated from further consideration.

Failure to demonstrate the minimally acceptability standards under this factor will result in an "UNACCEPTABLE" rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award.

Factor 2: Languages Provided Factor: In order to receive an Acceptable rating for Factor 2, Offeror must confirm the ability to translate all languages listed on Tiers 1, 2 and 3 listed on the Civil Aviation Registry Translation Services Statement of Work.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government's Technical Evaluation Team will review the project experience of the offeror, including subcontractors, on languages provided in response to Factor 2. Offerors must meet all of the following minimum acceptability standards to receive an "ACCEPTABLE" on this factor:

Failure to confirm the minimally acceptability standards under this factor will result in an "UNACCEPTABLE" rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award.

Factor 3: Turnaround Time for Translations Factor: In order to receive an Acceptable rating for Factor 3, Offeror must confirm the ability to deliver, via reply email, the resulting translations for each document for a call order no later than 6:00 p.m. central time on the third Federal workday or within 24 hours after submission for rush items.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government's Technical Evaluation Team will review the project experience of the offeror, including subcontractors, on translation turnaround times provided in response to Factor 3. Offerors must meet the following minimum acceptability standards to receive an "ACCEPTABLE" on this factor:

• Offeror must confirm ability to deliver, via reply email, the resulting translations for each document for a call order no later than 6:00 p.m. central time on the third Federal workday.

• Offeror must confirm ability to deliver, via reply email, the resulting translations for each rush document no later than 24 hours after submission.

Failure to confirm the minimally acceptability standards under this factor will result in an "UNACCEPTABLE" rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award.

Evaluation Scoring

• All vendors will receive an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating for each factor according to quality of their submission. All vendors will be rated according to the rating scheme outlined in this section.

• Each evaluator will use the following criteria to measure and score each proposal. Scoring will reflect the extent to which the vendor has met the overall factor requirements. Upon completion of the evaluation of each factor by a member of the evaluation team, the lead technical evaluator will summarize the proposals in a manner that determines which proposals are acceptable and which are unacceptable to support. Evaluation factors will be scored as outlined below to which the Offeror has met the overall factor requirements.

Rating Definition

Acceptable The proposal meets the stated requirements. The response is considered complete in terms of the basic content and level of information the Government seeks for review.

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet the stated requirements. The response is considered deficient in terms of basic content and support the Government seeks for review.

• Language translations shown can be from either the contractor or subcontractor.

Languages translated by subcontractors must be listed as such; AND

• Offeror must confirm the ability to translate all languages listed on Tiers 1, 2 & 3 on the draft SOW.

There is no separate risk assessment for the factors under this acquisition since the evaluation method/process is Low- Priced, Technically Acceptable (LPTA).

M.6 Cost/Price

Offerors may provide supporting pricing documentation that supports fair and reasonable, balanced pricing. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government consistent with how a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in AMS Toolbox T3.2.3.A.1c.

Offerors are cautioned that unreasonable prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement.

Offerors are cautioned to propose pricing for all Contract Line Items (CLIN) as omission of any required pricing information constitutes incomplete pricing and therefore, unreasonable pricing.

Offeror's proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the cost of some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others. An offer is materially unbalanced if it is mathematically unbalanced and if there is reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government (even though it may be the lowest evaluated offer); or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment. Offers that are materially unbalanced may be rejected. Price and/or cost analysis techniques will be used in determining whether offers are materially unbalanced.

In accordance with AMS 3.2.3.2, cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. AMS 3.2.3.2 provides for obtaining cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. Therefore, the AMS does not preclude the requirement for obtaining cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain such data as appropriate. Should the Contracting Officer (CO) determine proposed prices appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does no fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via cost or pricing data. Should this occur, this opportunity will be provided during discussions.

Price LPTA is applied to known, firm requirements, usually readily available in the commercial marketplace where a fair and reasonable price determination is based on adequate price competition. Therefore, price analysis will normally be used to determine the reasonableness of total evaluated price to support the selection of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror.

Risk Assessment