Attch 2 - Evaluation Criteria Final.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA (191NLE24R0001)

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The Government contemplates award of a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) Firm-Fixed Unit Price contract resulting from this solicitation. It is the intent of the Government to make an award based on the initial proposal without discussions. This is a competitive 8(a) solicitation.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Technical Evaluation Factors (i.e., non-Cost/Price) will be evaluated using an adjectival

(Outstanding, Acceptable, Unacceptable) rating scheme. The basis of award will be Best Value using Tradeoffs, price and non-price factors considered. The following technical factors and evaluation criteria shall be used, with the percentage of overall rating representing the level of importance (weight) for that factor (i.e Factors 1 through 3 are of equal importance):

FACTOR 1 – Experience and Expertise in Freight Forwarding Services (25% of overall rating)

Offeror’s proposal must clearly demonstrate experience and proven capabilities in providing proper, timely and cost effective freight forwarding services applicable to the United States Mission in Bogota (Colombia), which includes freight handling, storage, packing, forwarding, customs clearance and other related services that apply to shipments originating from, consigned to, routed through, and/or moved from the United States to Colombia, and from Colombia to locations in the United States for Government-owned materials, making sure to fully comply with the current customs regulations according to the different types of cargo.

FACTOR 2 – Experience and Expertise in Varying Cargo and Commodities (25% of overall rating)

Offeror’s proposal must clearly demonstrate experience and expertise in shipments related, but not limited to, the following cargo categories: aircraft parts and components, hazardous materials, ammunition, vehicles and vehicle parts, building and facilities equipment, Foreign

Military Sales (FMS) cargo, computer systems, communications equipment, and general commodities. This will also include experience and expertise in the proper handling, packaging and storage of such cargo.

FACTOR 3 – Experience and Expertise in Warehousing and Storage Services (25% of overall rating)

Offeror’s proposal must clearly demonstrate experience and expertise with warehousing and storage services for commodities to be provided during the period of consolidation and while awaiting ocean/air shipment as indicated in the Statement of Work. The proposal must include that operations to be managed by the eligible offerors may imply the use of different modes of transportation including air, maritime and ground shipments. In terms of geographical location, the eligible companies shall have warehouse facilities to receive/store cargo in the area surrounding the Miami (FL) airport.

FACTOR 4 – Experience and Expertise Specific to ITAR and Department of Commerce controlled Cargo (15% of overall rating)

Offeror’s proposal must clearly demonstrate experience and expertise in shipments related to

ITAR and Department of Commerce controlled cargo, which may also include hazardous items.

Proposal must document that labor employed to perform services under this contract are experienced and competent in making the necessary arrangements for clearing the INL acquired cargo through U.S. customs.

FACTOR 5 – DDTC/ITAR Certified (10% of overall rating)

Offeror’s proposal must clearly document offeror has a current DDTC registration code (ITAR certified) to be eligible for award.

TECHNICAL RATING

The following technical ratings will be assigned to each technical factor:

Rating Description

Outstanding

Demonstrates excellent understanding of context and requirements;

offers industry best practices and proactive and innovative solutions that meets and, in some cases, exceed criteria. Shows exceptional experience and expertise that will significantly benefit the Government.

Acceptable

Demonstrates an understanding of context and requirements and meets all noted solicitation criteria. Some minor, non-specific technical details or information gaps.

Unacceptable

Demonstrates a lack of understanding of context and/or requirements.

Does not meet all criteria required under the solicitation. Major gaps in experience and knowledge that the Government has the expectation that the offeror will not successfully perform the required effort.

PAST PERFORMANCE

For the purpose of evaluating past performance, the Government will consider the collective past performance of the proposed contract team. For evaluation purposes, the proposed contract team includes the Prime Offeror, joint venture partner, and major subcontractor(s), if applicable. For the purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that will likely perform more than 15% of the required effort.

(a) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent (within the last three years) and relevant record of performance in delivering services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

(b) The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, past performance must not be older than three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. In determining relevancy for past performance references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, to be performed under this contract by offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose performance is being reviewed and evaluated.

The Government will use the following definitions when assessing the relevancy of past performance references. With respect to relevancy, the Government will consider more relevant Past Performance to be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance evaluation than Past Performance of lesser relevance.

(b) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment 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 reasonably assigned 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 will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. 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.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be rated as “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”.

(c) In determining the rating for the past performance evaluation factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the Government's requirement. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired under this solicitation. The second aspect of past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed on the contracts.

(1) Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(2) Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. Consideration will be given to similarity of services. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing past performance:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY CONSIDERATIONS

Rating Definition

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved comparable scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

PRICE EVALUATION

(a) The Government will evaluate price for award purposes by adding the total price for proposed cost as proposed in the Offerors Cost/Price Proposal (see Section B.4 of Statement of Work and attached Pricing Schedule).