Bracket Section M_13Dec23_HTRO.pdf

Section M. Evaluation Basis for Award

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1. Source Selection Methodology

This source selection will utilize the Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Reasonable and Realistic Price (HTRO-RRP) process for determination of best value and as a basis for contract awards. There will be NO tradeoffs between technical and price. This is NOT a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process.

The Government Program Team (GPT) will issue a maximum of 5 MA-IDIQ task order contracts. Even if there is a single point difference between Offeror 5 and Offeror 6, only the Offeror in the 5th position will receive an award.

In the event of a tie at the maximum number 5 position, all Offerors tied at the 5th position will receive an award.

NOTE: A tie is determined exclusively at the 5th position when two or more Offerors’ receive an identical score. If a tie score occurs at any other position before the 5th position, the tie does not result in two or more Offerors holding that same numbered position. Depending on the quality of proposals received, the Government also reserves the right to award fewer than 5 contracts, or no contracts at all.

The GPT will strictly enforce all of the proposal submission requirements outlined in Section L. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in an Offeror’s proposal being rejected as being materially non-conforming to solicitation requirements. The GPT intends to award contracts without discussions. Initial proposals must contain the best offer. The GPT may conduct clarifications, as described in FAR 15.306(a). The GPT reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

1.2. Screening and Evaluation Process

A minimum validated self-score of three points for each criteria and an overall validated self-score of no lower than 33 points is required. Offerors that do not meet this minimum, will be removed from further consideration and will not be eligible for award.

The GPT will perform a multi-step screening process for all offers received. First, the GPT will sort the offers from highest score to lowest score solely using the Offeror’s Self-Scoring Worksheet (Section J, Attachment 1, Self- Scoring Worksheet). The GPT will establish the preliminary top 5 offerors, hereafter referred to as Top 5. A screening process of the Top 5 will commence to verify that the offeror has provided all required support documents for all the evaluation elements.

Second, the GPT will then verify that the Top 5 have passed all of the Acceptability Review and Responsibility Determination requirements in Sections 1.3 and 1.4 herein. Any Offeror in the Top 5 who fails these reviews will be removed from consideration for award and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable. The next highest rated Offeror(s) (based upon self-score) who passes the Acceptability Review and Responsibility Determination shall be added in the eliminated Offerors place. Only Offerors who initially pass all the criteria in the Acceptability Review and Responsibility Determination shall be considered eligible for award.

Third, once the results of the Top 5 Acceptability Review and Responsibility Determination are determined, the evaluation team will then check to verify that these Offerors have proposed reasonable and realistic pricing. In the event that an Offeror has not provided reasonable and realistic pricing, the Offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award unless discussions are conducted. However, the GPT plans to base the award on initial proposals and does not intend to conduct discussions.

Fourth, following the Acceptability Review and Responsibility Determination screening and determination of fair and reasonable price, the evaluation team will then evaluate and verify the offeror provided support documentation to support their self-score. Support documentation will be evaluated for each and every evaluation element in the Self Scoring Worksheet (Section J, Attachment 1, Self-Scoring Worksheet). During this evaluation, the GPT will make a determination whether or not the Offeror has FULLY validated their self-score with relevant data that clearly provides the GPT verification and validation of the Offeror’s self-score.

In the event that the GPT determines an evaluation area score to be unsubstantiated by the Offeror’s support documentation, the Offeror’s preliminary self-score shall have the point value of the refuted evaluation element deducted and all Offers will be re-sorted based upon the revised preliminary self-score. If the Offeror remains in the Top 5 the evaluation of the offer shall continue. If the Offeror does not remain in the Top 5, the evaluation for that offer will stop and the next highest rated Offeror (based upon self-score) who passes the Acceptability Review and Responsibility Determination and determination of fair and reasonable price shall be added to the Top 5 and evaluation shall begin on that offer.

The evaluation process shall continue this cycle until the Top 5 apparent successful Offerors are identified that represent the highest technically rated offers (based on validated scores) with a reasonable and realistic price.

In the event of a tie at the position of number 5 (by Government validated score), all Offerors tied for this position shall receive a contract award so long as their price is considered reasonable and realistic. As stated in section 1.1 above, even if there is a single point difference between Offeror 5 and Offeror 6, only the Offeror in the 5th position will receive an award.

Once the Top 5 have been accomplished, evaluations will cease and contract awards will be issued.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information or support documentation, the Offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Offerors are reminded that the GPT will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in their first proposals, in the proper format and meeting the requirements specified in Section L of this solicitation. The GPT may incorporate the successful Offeror’s proposal, or parts of the proposal, into the contract by reference. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, qualifies as a Small Business under NAICS 334613, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described herein.

1.3. Acceptability Review

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including completion of all required fill-in clauses, submission of all required documents, certifications, attachments and compliance with all terms and conditions.

Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors who fail any of the criteria listed in this Acceptability Review will be removed from consideration for award and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable.

1.4. Responsibility Determination

The overall responsibility determination will be made on a pass/fail basis. In accordance with FAR Part 9, Offerors that are not deemed responsible will not be considered for award. A satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics is required. In making the overall determination of responsibility, information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), the certification at FAR 52.209-5 (Section K), Section K in its entirety, the Offeror’s financial resources, and other pertinent data will be considered.

2. Technical Evaluation/Validation

Offerors who meet the Acceptability Review and Responsibility Determination in accordance with Section 1.3 and

1.4 will be evaluated for claimed points in accordance with the following section 2 criteria. Note: During the technical evaluation phase, the GPT may adjust the offeror’s self-scoring matrix downward only. No upward adjustments to the offeror’s self-score will be made based on the offeror’s support data provided.

The burden of proof for substantiating points in the Self Scoring Worksheet (Section J, Attachment 1, Self-Scoring Worksheet) rests solely with the Offeror. The Offeror’s supporting documentation shall contain sufficient data to substantiate all of the points claimed; failure to do so may result in the GPT downward adjusting the self-score, potentially all the way down to One (1) point(s) awarded for each element.

2.1. General (pass/fail)

The GPT will ensure that the offeror’s proposal includes all pass/fail documents required by Section L. This review will include a verification and validation that the data/documents provided are current, accurate, and complete.

2.2. Relevant Experience

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Relevant Experience. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.3. Facilities and Equipment

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Facilities and Equipment. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.4. Production Personnel

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Production Personnel. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.5. Administrative Personnel

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Administrative Personnel. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.6. Risk Assessment/Risk Management

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Risk Assessment/Risk Management. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.7. Environmental Health and Safety

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Environmental Health and Safety. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.8. Work Instructions

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Work Instructions. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.9. Materials Handling

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Materials Handling. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.10. Equipment Maintenance

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Equipment Maintenance. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.11. Materials Inspection

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Materials Inspection. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

2.12. Supplier Management

The GPT will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting documentation and work examples to validate their self-score in the area of Supplier Management. If the Offerors self-score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation and work examples provided, the GPT reserves the right to downward-adjust the Offeror’s score accordingly.

3. Price Evaluation

3.1. General

The Offeror’s Volume 3, Price Proposal will be used to determine a realistic and reasonable price for their proposed sample tasks. Price proposals may only be modified as a result of discussions and Offerors are advised that the GPT intends to make award based on initial proposals without discussions.

The Offeror’s proposed total price for each of the sample tasks will be summed together to create a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Offeror’s calculated TEP will be compared with the GPT’s internal Government estimate to complete all three (3) sample task orders. Any Offeror’s TEP that IS NOT within +/- 45% of the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) will NOT be considered reasonable or realistic and will NOT be considered for award. The IGCE will not be shared with Offeror’s but will be used internally for the purposes of determining a reasonable and realistic price.