Directions Eval Plan_METC_AEED_Wheel Loader.docx

FAR 16.505(b) Best Value Tradeoff Evaluation Criteria

For

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FOR

LARGE WHEEL LOADER

Under the CCDC Armaments Experimentation and Evaluation Division

EVALUATION PLAN

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FOR

LARGE WHEEL LOADER

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. INTRODUCTION.

This section contains proposal submission instructions as well as specific proposal requirements for the solicitation, and evaluation criteria under the Best-Value Trade-off method.

The offeror’s proposal shall be labeled in a consistent manner with this document. All references to the Statement of Work (SOW) shall be clearly labeled with the appropriate SOW paragraph. Offerors are expected to submit proposals in sufficient detail to allow for Government evaluation without the need for further clarifications. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. The burden of proving acceptability remains with the offerors.

2. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS.

The proposal shall consist of the following:

Volumes I through II shall be provided by email to: maxim.fenko.civ@mail.mil

Volume I is Technical. Volume II is Price.

Offerors are responsible to inquire with the Contract Specialist to ensure that the proposal submitted has, in fact, been received by the Contract Specialist.

1. PROPOSAL FILES.

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and Contract Number in the header and/or footer. All proposals shall be submitted in Microsoft Office format. Offerors shall not use security options within the files. MS Word (.doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right 1” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply:

1. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12 point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size not less than 8 point and may be landscape.

b. File Packaging. Each proposal volume shall be submitted as a separate file when submitting electronically. In addition, request that the offeror annotate (in writing) the total number of documents attached in the individual emails.

Content Requirements. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details (WITHOUT REFERENCE TO COST/PRICE) to permit a complete and accurate evaluation strictly from a technical standpoint. This part shall have an index which contains narrative titles which are cross-referenced to both the applicable PWS paragraph and page number. The narrative discussions shall also be related to the applicable PWS paragraph by placing the appropriate PWS number at the beginning of the discussion text. The offeror shall provide detailed narrative discussions that address the PWS requirements. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

1. VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR

a. Subfactor 1 – Technical Specifications for Large Wheel Loader

The Offeror shall present sufficient information to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). The submission should include overall dimensions and capabilities of the piece of equipment to include a complete set of specifications and available options. Quoted equipment shall conform to the SOW as closely as possible, even if some of the required features are optional equipment. The Offeror shall propose a delivery schedule with sufficient information for the Government to assess the ability to meet requirements on time.

b. Subfactor 2 – Standard Warranty

The Offeror shall submit a complete standard warranty package that will be provided as part of this contract. Standard warranty should include any services included in the warranty package.

The Offeror will also be allowed to include an optional warranty which will outline any available extension on the standard warranty as well as service packages available for purchase.

1. VOLUME II – PRICE FACTOR

Offerors shall submit a Firm Fixed Price proposal for CLIN 0001.

BASIS FOR AWARD

Evaluation Criteria – LARGE WHEEL LOADER

1.0 Basis for Award

In accordance with FAR 16.505(b) (1) Fair Opportunity, the Contracting Officer will provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for the subject solicitation. All proposals will be evaluated in a fair and consistent manner. The Best Value Source Selection Determination will be based on an integrated assessment of the Offeror’s proposal.

Relative Weighting of Criteria- The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the two (2) evaluation factors: Technical Factor and Price Factor. There are two subfactors within the Technical Factor:

Subfactor 1: Technical Specifications Subfactor 2: Standard Warranty

There are no subfactors within the Price Factor.

The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the best value tradeoff evaluation. In making the integrated assessment of the evaluation results, the Contracting Officer will give due consideration to all of the Factors and Subfactors and their relative order of importance. Technical Subfactors; all Technical Subfactors will be of equal importance. For evaluation purposes, the Technical Factor is more important than the Price Factor. Price will be evaluated, but will not be rated with a color or adjectival rating. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or to the Offeror with the highest technical rating, if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable OR Yellow/Marginal at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

All prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The Government reserves the right to not consider proposals whose contents demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the requirement. Proposals must provide convincing documentary evidence in support of a conclusion(s) relating to promised performance and conformance to the Government’s requirements.

The Government intends to award without discussions (except for clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals, if it is determined to be of benefit to the Government. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

2.0 Evaluation Approach

All proposals will be evaluated in a fair and consistent manner. All proposals will be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. The Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the best value will be awarded the purchase order.

The Government intends to award without discussions (except for clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

Minimum Acceptability: If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of thesolicitation, the offer may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

Discussions: A proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. Each proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms for award of an purchase Order. In accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.215-1, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions. The Contracting Officer will make the determination as to whether or not discussions are necessary. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

If discussions are deemed necessary by the Government, then all Offerors in the competitive range will participate in discussions and shall be advised of any significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, uncertainties, and/or deficiencies in their proposal. If discussions are held, Offerors shall be given a reasonable opportunity to correct or resolve any significant weaknesses, weakness and/or deficiencies and to submit technical, cost or other revisions to their proposal that may result from discussions. One or more proposal revisions may be required. At the conclusion of discussions, a final common cut-off date, which allows a reasonable opportunity for submission of written final offers, shall be established and all Offerors in the competitive range will be notified. Any final proposal revisions received will be evaluated and the re-evaluation will be documented in a final evaluation report. The final evaluation report will not contain a recommendation pertaining to which Offeror(s) should be selected for award.

Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical or are unrealistically low or high in price, will be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk in the contract requirements. For consideration of an award of this procurement action, Offerors are cautioned that unsupported promises to comply with the contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must provide convincing documentary evidence in support of a conclusion(s) relating to promised performance and conformance to the Government’s requirements.

Technical Factor/Subfactor evaluation color code/adjectival ratings and definitions are as follows:

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Within the Technical Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the color code/adjectival ratings. Each Subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks and uncertainties. Each Subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these Subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Factor rating.

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

The adjectival and color rating from the table has an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Evaluators will apply the adjectival rating for the definition that most closely matches the evaluation.

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.

Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

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.

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

Uncertainty - Any aspect of a non-cost/price Factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

3.0 Evaluation Factors

The Government reserves the right to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. The offerors’ proposals shall be in the form prescribed by and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in the Instructions to offerors solicitation provision entitled “Submission of Proposals.”

The following evaluation factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Volume I - Technical Factor Volume II - Price Factor

The Technical Factor is more important than the Price Factor.

The Technical Subfactors are all of equal importance.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address all factors as they apply to the SOW.

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR

Subfactor 1 – Technical Specifications for Large Wheel Loader

1) Proposals shall be evaluated for the following with regard to their proposed piece of equipment based on the requirements outlined in the SOW.

a) Completeness of listed specifications: The offerors proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it provides the required information to make a determination on the accuracy the proposed equipment meets the requirements outlined in the SOW.

b) Specification Evaluation: The offerors proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the listed specifications meet the requirements outlined in the SOW.

Subfactor 2 – Standard Warranty

1) Standard (Included) Warranty:

a) The standard (included) warranty will be assessed based on its overall value to the division. Offerors should include a complete warranty package that outlines every component of the machine that is covered and for how long that coverage applies as well as what that time is based on (months/years, hours of operation, etc).

b) Offerors are to include any additional warranties available for purchase at time of contract award. These warranties should follow all the specifications outlined above, as well as including the price for each warranty option.

VOLUME II – PRICE FACTOR

The price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Price will not be scored.

The Price factor will not have an adjectival rating assigned. The Offeror shall propose pricing for this solicitation in accordance with the SOW requirements. The total evaluated price is the total price proposed for this solicitation.

Offerors shall utilize a Microsoft Excel file format with formals intact when submitting their price/cost proposal (FAR 15.403-5(b)(2)).

A price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) will be conducted on the total price for this solicitation. The total price for this solicitation will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.

Adequate competition is anticipated for this contract. However, in the event that only one offer is received, the Government reserves the right to perform a cost analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(c). If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data and to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in the FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate. Therefore, in instances when only one offer is received and the quote is $2,000,000.00 or more, the Contracting Officer shall obtain Certified Cost or Pricing Data. Offers under $2,000,000.00 require cost or pricing data, but such cost or pricing data is not required to be certified by the offeror. Cost or Pricing Data or Other than certified cost or pricing data shall be provided upon request IAW FAR 15.403. This information will be evaluated for magnitude and reasonableness and may be adjusted from a technical and cost perspective using cost analysis to determine the most probable cost to the Government. Offerors shall utilize a Microsoft Excel file format with formulas intact when submitting their Price/Cost quote (FAR 15.403-5(b)(1)).

Price Inconsistencies: A proposal is presumed to represent an Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of work required and their financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE