Attachment E-Section M Evaluation Factors and Basis for Award.pdf

ATTACHMENT E: SECTION M– EVALUAITON FACTORS FOR AWARD

15A00024R00000078

1.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The Government intends to award a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) in support of the

Bureau, of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, (ATF), National Academy for a Firearms

Investigations Identification Instructor to fulfill a requirement to recruit qualified individuals, retaining valuable employees, and equipping all employees with the knowledge and skills needed for their current and future Bureau positions.

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) competitive requirement for all-inclusive Firearms Identification & Investigations Training Instructor in support of the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to include related tasks, training, and travel per the enclosed SOW to be conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 13.303 Blanket purchase agreements (BPA).

The Government will select the quote with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. BPA may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1-Contractor

Qualifications, as supplemented, whose quotes 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 assessed, based on the evaluation, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable quote

All quotes will be evaluated by the Government’s Technical Evaluation Team

(TET) using the factors described in this RFQ. Therefore, the initial quotation submitted should contain the Offeror’s best terms. for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth by the RFQ. Therefore, the initial quotation submitted should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

The Government will ensure all quotes received for the BPA are equitably considered and award is made to the responsible offeror(s) that is most advantageous and proposes the greatest-overall benefit (per the "best value" definition Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101) to the Government IAW the basis for selection stated within this RFQ.

The Government will perform a comparative-analysis (comparing quotes/offers to each other) to assess the timely and responsive quotations for this requirement) in accordance FAR 13.106-2 Evaluation of quotations or offers using the below, non-price and price factors.

Offerors are cautioned not to minimize the importance of an adequate response in any area because of its order of importance or visibility.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Evaluation Criteria set forth below have been developed by government technical personnel and has been tailored to the requirements of this RFQ for a Firearms

Identification and Investigations Instructor. The criteria serve as the standard against which all quotes shall be evaluated and serve to identify the significant matters which the

Offeror should specifically address in complying with the requirements of this RFQ.

The Government will assess the degree to which offerors propose the best value to the Government and quote effectively demonstrates knowledge, understanding and technical ability to successfully perform and manage the SOW requirements.

Additionally, the Government will determine which offerors propose the best value to the Government based on their demonstrated abilities and capabilities in relation to this requirement as well as their demonstrated feasibility of successful implementation, joint commitment to achieve the overall project objectives and methodology for providing resource support will be assessed. The Government reserves the right to reject any quotation that’s non-compliant with the solicitation.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers which are listed in descending order of importance:

Volume 1 - Non-Price Factors:

• Factor 1 – Qualifications (Experience, Education and Training)

• Factor 2-Approach to Maintaining Subject Matter Currency and Quality

Control

• Factor 3-Past Performance

Volume 2 - Price Factor:

• Factor 3: Price

Factor 1 – Qualifications (Experience, Education and Training)

The Government will evaluate the offeror on its demonstrated ability to provide all required services noted in the SOW. The Government will assess the degree to which the quotation demonstrates an understanding of the SOW requirements.

The quotation must address how the Offeror will provide the services and accomplish the tasks and requirements iterated in the SOW.

The Government will rate this factor as a Pass (Acceptable) or Fail

(Unacceptable) in relation to whether the offeror demonstrates its ability to fulfill

ATF’s requirement. To be rated "Pass (Acceptable)," the Offeror's quote must clearly demonstrate its knowledge, understanding, and technical ability to successfully perform and manage the requirements of the SOW; otherwise, the

Government will rate the Offeror "Fail (Unacceptable)." If rated the latter, then the offeror shall not be eligible for further consideration of award.

Factor 2-Approach to Maintaining Subject Matter Currency and Quality

Control

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror effectively demonstrates a knowledge, understanding, and technical ability to successfully perform and manage the requirements of the Statement of Work. Additionally, shall demonstrate how he/she continues to meet or exceed qualification standards, remaining current in the subject areas and ensuring that students meet up-to-date course objectives and successfully complete training.

The offeror is cautioned that if it's evident it has copied and pasted language from the PWS instead of providing a novel demonstration of its abilities, the

Government may find its quote unacceptable.

Factor 3-Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s three (3) detailed summaries of its recent-and-relevant projects, as well as its corresponding, finalized-evaluation reports [("interim/final")] from CPARS, if available and applicable (work with the federal government). [And if the offeror's CPARS reports are unavailable, the

Government will evaluate its corresponding, past- performance questionnaires.

The Government may contact a reference(s) to verify the submitted information as it assesses the relevance, breadth, and quality of the offeror’s recent past performance. The Government may also use and evaluate other past-performance information available in both Government and commercial databases (i.e., additional records in CPARS). If the Government uses information other than/in addition to the detailed summaries, then it will be consistent among the offerors.

While an offeror with no recent-and-relevant past performance will be considered

Neutral for this Factor, the Government will still compare this factor with the other quotes for the affected offeror(s), provided the offeror included an affirmative declaration that it is without a record of recent-and-relevant past performance with its quotation submission. Otherwise, the Government may reject its quotation for having failed to provide a solicitation requirement.

The Contract will be awarded to the responsive and responsible Offeror(s) whose offer(s) are most advantageous to the Government, based upon the evaluation criteria specified below.

The Government will use the below Relevance and Confidence Ratings for this factor to assess its level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully fulfill/satisfy ATF’s requirement.

Relevance

Ratings

Description

Very Relevant

The offerors’ quote meets contractual requirements and exceeds most, if not all with no deficiencies many to the Government’s benefit.

The quote being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Relevant The offerors’ quote meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The quote being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Minimally Relevant The offerors quote marginally meets minimum requirements;

minor deficiencies which may be correctable.

Not Relevant The offeror fails to meet minimum requirements, e.g., no demonstrated capacity, major deficiencies which are not correctable; offeror did not address the factor required by this

RFQ.

Confidence

Ratings

Description

Confident

The offeror’ quote exceeds almost all the significant requirements required by this RFQ with no deficiencies. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Acceptable The offers’ quote exceeds most, if not all requirement, no deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Minimally Acceptable Marginally meets minimum requirements; minor deficiencies which may be correctable.

No Confidence The offeror’s effort in its performance record indicates the quote does not clearly meet requirements and does not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement.

The quote has major deficiencies with no expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Neutral Based on the offeror’s inaccessible performance record, the Government cannot reasonably assign a meaningful expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 4-Price:

The price Quote shall be submitted separately from the offeror’s technical Quote.

General. Offeror must complete Attachment B – Pricing Model based on information contained in the Statement of Work for each Commercial Line-Item Number (CLIN) in accordance with Attachment C-Statement of Work for this request for Quote.

Unit pricing for Firearms Identification & Investigations Training Instructor shall be the fully load price, inclusive of all fully burdened labor rates. Its Price section must also contain sufficient and detailed information/material (i.e.: labor category/rates/hours, and other direct costs) to allow the CO to perform an analysis of the proposed price of the work to determine price reasonableness. All cost associated should be inclusive within your price

(including discount costs).

3.0 EVALUATION OF OPTION YEARS

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by evaluating the total price for all options as well as the base year. Evaluation of option(s) shall not obligate the Government to exercise them.

The total Government’s requirements may change during the option years. Quantities to be awarded will be determined at the time each option is exercised.

To assess price reasonableness and amount, the Offeror shall submit a quote that adds the total price for all option periods to the total price for the basic requirement. This includes options under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, which applies to this solicitation.

Evaluation of options under 52.217-8 will be accomplished by using the prices offered for the last option period, which will be added to the base and other option years to arrive at the total evaluated price Shall contain the SF 1449 and a signed copy of each amendment, if any, to the solicitation. An official authorized to bind the company shall sign the SF 1449.

An acrobat file, “.pdf”, shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

The price quote shall be submitted separately from the offerors technical volume. The offeror pricing quote shall include the following:

o A completed Attachment – Pricing Table o Copy of the Offeror’s Price Catalog.

o Expiration date of Pricing Catalog submitted.

o Unit pricing must be clearly identified for each line item.

o Any proposed discounts in the form of price reduction.

o SAM UEI Number.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.

This includes options under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, which applies to this solicitation.

Evaluation of options under 52.217-8 will be accomplished by using the prices offered for the last option period, which will be added to the base and other option years to arrive at the total price. Evaluations of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

3.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

ATF will use the stated, evaluation methodology in accordance FAR 13.106-2 Evaluation of quotations or offers evaluation methodology (comparative-analysis) to issue a competitive, Blanket Purchase Agreement to the responsible offeror that represents the best value (most advantage) to the Government and meet/exceed the acceptability standards for the non-price factors. However, as quotes become more equal in their technical merit, the evaluated price will be the determining factor.

ATF intends to use the offerors' initial quotation (price and non-price) as the sole and final basis for award of a total solution that's at least satisfactory; therefore, offerors are encouraged to provide their most-favorable terms with the initial, quotation submission.

ATF reserves the right to engage/communicate with all, some, or none of the firms to obtain a better understanding, even request a revised quotation(s) if deemed in the best interest of the Government.

• ATF may reject any quote that is evaluated to be: non-compliant with the solicitation requirements; unreasonably under/overstated; or reflects a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the work to be performed.

• ATF will not award to an offeror whose quote is non-responsive or technically unacceptable; similarly, ATF may not award to an offeror that receives a "No" for the

Confidence rating for any factor as such indicates the quotation is unsatisfactory/ unacceptable.

4.0 CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI)

Any offeror/contractor shall identify any COI, as defined in FAR subpart 9.5, once known and recommend a Mitigation Plan. Said plan is required whenever a competing offeror/contractor has had unequal access to non-public information regarding this competed requirement or has assisted the Government in defining the requirements or evaluation criteria.