Attch 3 - Section M Additional Information.pdf

Attachment M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Evaluation Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff Process procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to make a best value award decision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the and the Contracting Officer (CO) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance and technical superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph below. (NOTE: The process for evaluation of proposals in FAR 15.3 will be used in structure, however, source selection procedures will not used).

1.1 Definitions

In accordance with FAR 15.001 and for the purpose of this evaluation the following terms will be utilized in the evaluation of your proposal:

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Strength An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness The proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

1.2 Factors and Subfactors and Relative Importance

FACTOR 1: Past Performance - Design AND/OR Manufacture of Similar SAPF Trailers FACTOR 2: Technical - 30% Design Minimum FACTOR 3: Price

1.3 Relative Importance

The Past Performance factor is more important than the Technical factor. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

2.0 The Contracting Officer shall evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on the PPQs provided by the Offeror and data independently obtained from other Government and Commercial sources.

2.1 Scope

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the confidence of the Offeror’s meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence.

2.2 Recency

Recent past performance is defined as ongoing contracts with a performance history, and contracts completed within three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

2.3 Relevancy

Relevancy for individual past performance submissions, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will evaluate relevancy according to Table M1 below:

TABLE M1 – RELEVANCY RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and 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.

2.4 Performance Confidence Assessment

The Past Perfromance evaluation will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence and No Confidence, as defined in Table M2 below.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”.

TABLE M2 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL

2.5 The technical rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining the technical rating using the ratings in Table M3. Any proposal containing a deficiency is Unacceptable.

Table M3 Technical Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE FACTOR

3.0 Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s pricing for reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404.

3.1 The Offeror's price proposal will not be rated or scored. To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, Data Resources Incorporated (DRI) Indices and any other resource available to the Government.

3.2 In its evaluation the Government will establish an Evaluated Target Price(ETP). ETP will be comprised of Target Cost and Target Profit as proposed. Both ETP and proposed material cost will be evaluated to determine reasonabliness.

3.3 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government is only obligated to fund the base CLIN (0001) of this requirement.