Basis For Evaluation_TMDE Calibrations.pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD

This award selection will be conducted using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures.

To be eligible for award, a proposal must meet all technical requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and include all information required. All non-price evaluation factors must be rated at

"ACCEPTABLE" in order to be eligible for award. An "UNACCEPTABLE" rating in any factor will result in the proposal being rated "UNACCEPTABLE" unless corrected through discussions. A proposal rating of "UNACCEPTABLE" makes a proposal ineligible for award. Since the LPTA methodology prohibits trade-offs, all evaluation factors and sub-factors are equally important. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non- price factors.

A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Proposed Price (TPP) provided by the offeror on the price schedule sheet. Next, an evaluation of each factor and, subsequently, the overall proposal will be performed beginning with the lowest priced proposal. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-price factors. The Government intends to award a contract without conducting discussions; therefore, the initial proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and should contain the best offer from a technical and price perspective.

Technical Factor 1 – Past Performance

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors do not need to provide any information under this factor as the US Government will base the evaluation on all INTERIM and FINAL Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) that are recent and relevant. The CPARs will be retrieved from official US Government sources, including, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System and the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

Recency:

For the purposes of this solicitation, a past performance record is recent if the CPAR final date of assessment listed in the “Period of Performance Being Assessed” block is within the 24 month period preceding the proposal due date.

Relevancy:

For the purposes of this solicitation, a past performance record is relevant if the CPAR business sector is listed as “Services”.

In order to receive an "acceptable" rating for this factor, an Offer's recent and relevant CPARs must

NOT include one or more INTERIM and/or FINAL CPARs with a rating of "UNSATISFACTORY" in one or more categories OR one or more INTERIM and/or FINAL CPARs with a rating of "MARGINAL" in two or more categories. If an Offeror has one or more CPARs with a rating of "UNSATISFACTORY" in one or more categories OR one or more CPARs with a rating of "MARGINAL" in two or more categories, the Offeror's past performance will be evaluated as "UNACCEPTABLE".

In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and 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. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.” An

“UNACCEPTABLE” rating for a single factor will result in the Offeror’s entire proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE”.

Technical Factor 2 – Problem and Approach

Proposals, which merely offer a statement to conduct/provide services in accordance with the requirements in the Government’s SOW, will not be eligible for award. The offeror must submit an explanation that meet the requirements identified under SOW; The offeror must identify what mechanism shall be utilized to document completion of equipment repairs/ calibrations and certifications.

This factor will be evaluated as “ACCEPTABLE” if explanation meets the requirements identified under

SOW; Completion of documentation repairs, calibrations, and certifications, which comply with the requirements outlined above, are submitted. If an explanation of one or more Performance

Task/Requirement is not provided, and/or do not comply with the requirements, this factor will receive an

“UNACCEPTABLE” rating.

Technical Factor 3 – Management

Proposals, which merely offer a statement to conduct/provide services in accordance with the requirements in the Governments SOW, will not be eligible for award. The offeror must submit an explanation that identifies the offeror’s management capabilities and responsibilities to meet the following: Tour of Duty/Schedule, Description of Services, Contractor Responsibility and Personnel

Requirements.

This factor will be evaluated as “ACCEPTABLE” if the explanation meets the requirement for management capabilities and responsibilities to meet the following: Tour of Duty/Schedule, Description of Services, Contractor Responsibility and Personnel Requirements, which comply with the requirements outlined above, are submitted. If an explanation of one or more of the following: Tour of Duty/Schedule, Description of Services, Contractor Responsibility and Personnel Requirements and/or do not comply with the requirements, this factor will receive an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating.

IHS reserves the right to make multiple awards, which is most advantages to the Government. This is a competitive solicitation and the offer your firm submits will be used by IHS to determine, which of the quantities listed within are, “estimate only” and it is not the intent of IHS to be obligated to order the

“quantities.”

Factor 4 – Price

Completed Price Schedule Sheet

The Government will evaluate price based on the total proposed price calculated as the sum of bid item

0001 Base Year, item 0002 Option Year 1, item 0003 Option Year 2, item 0004 Option Year 3 and item

0005 Option Year 4 that includes Contract cost, Subcontractor cost, Overhead and Profit. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

Note: A price that is found to be either unreasonable high or unrealistically low in relation to the proposed work may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the overall proposal being considered unacceptable.

INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors.

Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the

Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. However, The

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

All proposals must be submitted by __________________________________. Facsimile proposals will not be allowed. Emailed proposals are allowed and must be submitted to Valerie.heartbroker@ihs.gov.

No original copy is required to be submitted.