Attch 9_Section M_LF Grounding Points.pdf

Section M – Best Value Trade-Off Procedures

1. Basis for Award.

a. Basis for Award:

1) This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors’ combined technical/risk assessment and past performance will be evaluated as slightly more important than price. This may result in an award to a higher confidence rating, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined non-responsive. The Government intends to award one contract. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the solicitation. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their technical capability, prices and performance records.

b. Evaluation Process: The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1) An offerors determination of responsibility will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

Offerors deemed responsible will be evaluated utilizing the criteria in steps two (2) through six (6). Offerors deemed un-responsible as described in FAR Part 9 will not be evaluated further.

2) Offerors will be ranked in ascending order from lowest to highest priced.

3) Each responsive offer will be assessed for technical capability in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in TABLE 3.

4) Each responsive offer past performance will then be assessed and assigned a past performance confidence rating in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in

TABLE 2.

5) A combined technical/risk assessment will be assigned utilizing the results of steps 2 and 3 in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in TABLE 3.

6) The Source Selection Authority shall then make a decision as to which proposal is most advantageous to the Government based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

c. Offerors must include prices for CLIN and SLIN prices identified in Attachment 11: LF Grounding Points Bid Schedule of the solicitation for the period of performance. Failure to do so may be considered by the Government as non-responsive and cause for rejection of the entire offer.

d. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors.

The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

e. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L, Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award

a. Three evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals: Price, Technical Capability, and Past Performance.

1. Factor 1: Price

a) The government shall rank all offers by price in ascending order from lowest to highest priced. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) or Subcontract Line Item Number (SLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), or unrealistic may not be considered for award.

b) All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the government. In case of variation between the unit price and the extension, the unit prices will be considered the offer.

c) The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices offered are significantly unbalanced.

d) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

e) Realism: The offeror’s Price proposal may be evaluated to ensure it is realistic, pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(1).

f) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

g) Offerors are required to submit offers on all items listed on the Bid Schedule.

2. Factor 2: Technical Capability

a) An evaluation of each offeror's proposal shall be made using a combined technical/risk assessment. The technical capability rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. The focus of the technical acceptability is to identify if the contractor has an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement. This rating will be based on the Government’s technical knowledge and historical data.

b) Offeror must provide a detailed narrative description of the technical approach that will provide, as specifically as possible, the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the work, and address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements.

Specifically, the technical narrative must address the trenching at three feet (3 ft.) or greater below grade, splicing cable, and grounding cable resistance testing requirements.

c) The technical approach shall be submitted in the format of Attachment 12:

Technical Narrative.

d) Technical approach will be evaluated based upon the strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the technical approach. Each offeror will receive an adjectival rating based upon the capability to meet construction standards and specifications designated by the Government in their proposed technical approach.

3. Factor 3: Past Performance

a) Past performance will be evaluated on recency and relevancy. Each offeror will receive an integrated overall Performance Confidence Rating. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirement based on previous and current contract efforts.

b) For the purpose of this evaluation, “relevant” is defined as a project valued between

$500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 or more and includes all or some of the tasks required for this project, including constructing a well.

TABLE 1

Rating Definition 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.

c) For the purpose of this evaluation, “recent” is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of release of this solicitation.

d) The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offeror’s references, other sources such as other federal government offices, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), and private and commercial sources. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy is defined above. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Consideration will be given to whether the past performance information is applicable to the prime contractor, teaming partners, and/or joint venture actually performing that part of the requirement. This information may include efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to the current effort. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns andFAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Not Applicable to Small Business).

e) Where the relevant past and present performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts, or performance evaluations, to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. If the offeror clearly demonstrates management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, this may allow the offeror to be rated higher than might otherwise be indicated. The Government will evaluate/assess all past performance information, positive and negative. Offerors will be offered the opportunity to respond to negative past performance reports if they had not had the opportunity to do so previously. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance will receive a past performance rating of “Neutral Confidence.”

f) Each offeror will be assessed a Performance Confidence Rating described below, taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of each citation reviewed:

TABLE 2

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Adjectival Rating Description

4. Factor 4: Combined Technical/Risk Assessment

a) The combined technical/risk assessment will be used to determine an offeror’s overall capability to perform the solicited requirement successfully.

b) Taking into account the technical capability and past performance data reviewed, each offeror will be assessed an adjectival rating described below:

TABLE 3

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.

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.

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.

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.

4. Contractor Responsibility. Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

a. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer has specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.