Attch 2 - Technical Evaluation Factors Supplemental.docx

ATTACHMENT 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA: Solicitation 191NLE26Q0101 The Government contemplates awarding a Firm-Fixed Price contract using commercial item procedures under FAR Part 12 and FAR 13.5. The Government will award a contract to the responsible contractor whose offer conforms to the requirements of the solicitation and is evaluated as being the most advantageous to the Government, cost or price and other factors considered. It is the intent of the Government to make an award based on the initial quote/proposal without discussions.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

All proposals/quotes shall be valid for a minimum of 60-days from the closing date of the 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 listed in descending order of importance.

FACTOR 1 – Technical Specifications (Weight - 65%) – Offerors proposal must meet or exceed the required technical specifications as prescribed in the Statement of Work, including, but no limited to, applicable warranty details and a valid letter of representation from GCS authorizing sales to the United States Federal Government. Technical Specifications AND Pictures are required with the submission. Proposal/quote shall contain sufficient detail for the government to conduct a thorough evaluation.

FACTOR 2 – Delivery Time: INL/Kyiv (Weight – 20%) – Faster delivery times are preferred. However, performance period for this contract will be no more than 180 days from the date of award. The Contractor shall interpret any reference made to days, as calendar days.

FACTOR 3 – Export Compliance Experience (Weight - 15%) - Offeror’s proposal/quote must clearly demonstrate compliance the shipment of ITAR and AECA equipment.

Rating Scheme:

Price (Non-Technical):

The offeror shall submit a price proposal that is consistent with the requirements set forth in the SOW. Pricing shall include all equipment, consumables, shipping, as well as any applicable Other Direct Costs (ODCs), G&A, Overhead and profit/fee. Any travel, if applicable, must be in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations (FTRs) and Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSRs). Price proposal must contain sufficient detail for the government to conduct price reasonableness analysis.

Past Performance:

The offeror shall submit a total of three (3) relevant past performance contracts within the past five (5) years that include the following information:

· Company name (Client).

· Contract/Order Number

· Project start date.

· Project completion date.

· Project description.

· Project cost.

· Project point of contact name.

· Point of contact email.

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 five (5) 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.

Performance Confidence Assessment Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating based on relevancy and quality assessments:

Point of Contact Exchanges of source selection information between Government and Offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer (CO). Email may be used to communicate with offerors. All emails must include “191NLE26Q0101 Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the Subject line. Email: timmonsJ@state.gov and copy coccovizzoML@state.gov Non-Government Advisors Non-Government Advisors will not provide ratings for proposals received in response to the solicitation. Their expertise is required for document preparation, training, advisory, and electronic source selection support. The use of Non-Government Advisors as defined above does not warrant a formal determination by the head of the agency as prescribed in FAR 37.204 (a).

Company names of Non-Government Advisor(s) are:

Universal Strategy Group, Inc.

Pre-Award Survey The Government may, at the Contracting Officers discretion, conduct pre-award surveys in accordance with FAR 9.106.