ATTACHMENT I-EVALUATION FACTORS FOR SHIP INSPECTIONS-DAMAGE CONTROL-AUDITS.doc

DRAFT EVALUATION FACTORS

BASIS FOR AWARD:

a. The Government intends to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

b. Offerors will be evaluated according to the Tradeoff procedures. The Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than Technical and Price. Technical is more important than price. An offeror who receives a technical rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” will not be considered for award unless discussions are conducted. An offeror who receives a Past Performance Rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence”, will not be considered for award unless communications/discussions are conducted. An offeror’s price/rates that cannot be determined fair and reasonable and/or not in the best interest in the Government will not be considered for award unless discussions are conducted. A single order will be awarded to the offeror who is considered to have the following:

i. Highest rated overall proposal in Technical and Past Performance and a proposal that is in the best interest of the Government.

ii. Proposes a price that is determined to be fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the Government.

iii. Meets all the requirements of the solicitation.

Factor 1 Technical Approach/Understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS): Factor will be rated utilizing the below Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method. After each offeror is rated for technical, an overall ranking will be provided for Factor 1.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method for Factor 1

Factor 2 Past Performance: Past Performance will be rated utilizing the Relevancy Rating Method and a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method. An offeror who receives a rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” will not be considered for award unless discussions are conducted. After each offeror is rated for past performance, an overall ranking will be provided for Factor 2.

Factor 3 Price: Price/Rates are required to be determined fair and reasonable and in the best interest for the Government in order for an offeror to be considered for award. An offeror’s price that could not be determined fair and reasonable will not be considered for award unless discussions are conducted. An offeror whose price that is determined fair and reasonable but is not in the best interest of the Government will not be awarded a contract.

Tie Breaker: If two or more offerors are rated equally when it comes to technical and rated equally for past performance, then the contract will be awarded to the offeror with the lowest price that is considered fair and reasonable and is in the best interest of the Government.

The following below factors will be evaluated during tradeoff evaluation stage:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH/UNDERSTANDING OF THE PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

The Offeror shall describe in its proposal its overall understanding of and approach to the type of services that it would expect to perform and deliver as a result of the award of this contract. The narrative should not be a rephrasing of the PWS, but instead, should concentrate on the Offeror's understanding and approach to the PWS. In this discussion, the Offeror shall convey the Offeror’s understanding of the overall requirements of the system elements and scope (both in breadth and depth) of material and work, which are required. The Offeror's proposal shall at a minimum discuss the following areas:

1. Understanding of the Military Sealift Command

2. Understanding of and approach to Ship Material Assessment and Readiness Testing

(SMART 1.0 and SMART 2.0)

3. Understanding of an approach to ISM internal and external audits including concurrent load line, structural fire protection and FFE inspections support

4. Understanding of an approach to conducting a DC assist visit on a GOGO and GOCO vessel

5. Understanding of regulatory body requirements, including the United States Coast Guard, International Maritime Organization and the American Bureau of Shipping

6. Offeror provides a plan on how they are going to provide and maintain qualified personnel that required in accordance with the PWS.

The Offeror’s technical approach shall demonstrate its understanding of the PWS; its ability to perform the work; and its capabilities, expertise, and relevant experience.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors are requested to provide information on up to three (3) Government contracts, of which the offeror was the primary Offeror, whose effort is, or was, recent and is relevant to the effort required by this solicitation.

A. “Recent” is defined as a contract in-progress for at least a full year or completed within the last three (3) years. If the offeror does not have three (3) Government contracts fitting the one year or three (3) years definition, then the offeror may submit information on recent and relevant subcontracts and/or commercial contracts.

B. “Relevant” is defined as a contract that is of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements as set forth in this solicitation.

a. Scope: Experience in the areas defined in the PWS.

b. Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the volume, dollar value and/or duration of the work actually performed under the Offeror’s submitted contracts to the PWS.

c. Complexity: The measure of the similarity of technical difficulty, managerial intricacy and/or required coordination of efforts and disciplines performed by the Offeror in its submitted contracts to the PWS. For complexity, not only will the tasks performed by the Offeror be considered, but also the Offeror’s ability to coordinate tasks (e.g., concurrent performance requirements).

The following criteria will be used to determine the relevancy of each recent Past Performance Information submitted:

Relevancy Ratings for Factor 2

C. “Quality” will be evaluated when the Government reviews all recent and relevant past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate “quality” assessment rating will not be assigned, but rather the offeror's overall record of performance quality will be used to assign a confidence rating.

Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating, as follows:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings for Factor 2

A Past Performance Data Sheet is requested to be submitted for each contract to be considered as past performance. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts to the requirements of this solicitation; a detailed description of the work performed for the contract; and the role performed, including whether the Offeror acted as a prime Offeror or a subcontractor. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of all data provided. In evaluating past performance the Government may contact some of the references provided by the offeror and other sources of information, including, but not limited to: Federal, state and local government agencies, better business bureaus, published media, and electronic databases. The Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror. The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the request for proposal. To develop an overall rating, the Government’s evaluation will take into account relevant information submitted by the offeror as part of its proposal and the Government’s assessment and evaluation of other sources of information. Other sources of information for past performance may include, but are not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Report System (ESRS), other databases, questionnaires and interviews. The following ratings will be used in the past performance evaluation:

(1) The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of past performance information compared to the requirements detailed in the PWS, the source of the information, the context of the data and general trends in the offeror’s performance and any associated risk.

(2) The Government will consider the extent of the offeror’s ability to perform a previous contract successfully in the areas of: (a) quality; (b) schedule; and (c) management

(3) The Government will consider historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-8, if applicable (Utilization of Small Business Concerns).

(4) The Government will consider the company itself, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and subcontractors who will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

(5) If an offeror’s past performance is unknown the offeror will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral” which is rating that does not rate an offeror favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance. However, the Government may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

For each of the contracts the Offeror describes in a Performance Data Sheet, the Offeror is requested to provide a Past Performance Questionnaire to a reference at the organization that awarded the contract. It is requested that the reference, not the Offeror, email the completed Past Performance Questionnaire BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR PROPOSAL directly to Andrew MacDonald at andrew.p.macdonald2.civ@us.navy.mil and Jenna Donley at jenna.n.donley.civ@us.navy.mil. The Offeror, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, is responsible for ensuring that the Government receives a sufficient number of questionnaires.

FACTOR III: PRICE

Price analysis techniques will be utilized to determine the reasonableness of the proposed price, hours, and rates to the Government in accordance with FAR 15.4. The Government will set the ceiling for travel cost because the Government does not have enough information at this to confidently allow the contractor to propose a price travel cost over a five-year period, therefore the offeror only needs to provide a price for labor cost. As stated above, if an offeror’s price cannot be determined fair and reasonable, the offeror would not be considered for award. In addition, the Government wants to inform all offerors that an offeror who receives the highest technical rating, the highest past performance rating, and who proposes a price that is fair and reasonable may not receive an award if the Government cannot justify/determine that paying the premium price for the services are in the best interest of the Government.