Evaluation_Factors_-_OSAP_Kits.pdf

1.0 PROPOSAL STRUCTURE

The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organizational Table below. All Volumes shall be in 11 pitch font or larger. Graphics may be small than 11 pitch however they must be legible. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the Table below:

Volume Title RFQ References Copies Page Limit

A Product Access and Availability 1 Electronic copy 1

B Management Approach 1 Electronic copy 10

C Past Performance 1 Electronic copy 20

D Price (All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Volume)

1 Electronic copy No limit

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will award the blanket purchase agreement (BPA) and subsequent task orders resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and that provides the best overall value to satisfy the Government’s needs. The Government will select the proposal that provides the best overall value.

A written notice of award furnished to the successful Offeror shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the Offerors specified expiration time, the Government may accept a proposal (or part of a proposal) without discussions unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award. The Government specifically reserves the right to remove from award consideration any Offeror’s proposal that does not conform to all requirements in the solicitation.

2.1 Evaluation Factors

Award of the BPA will be made on a competitive best value basis, using “trade-off” among price and non-price factors. The Government may elect to award to other than lowest priced Offeror or other than highest technically evaluated Offeror.

The following factors will be used to evaluate proposals:

Factor 1 - Volume A, Product Access and Availability, will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Any Offeror receiving a Fail for Products will be ineligible for award, with no further evaluation.

Factor 2 - Volume B: Management Approach will be rated using an adjectival ratings.

Factor 3 - Volume C: Past Performance will be rated using an adjectival rating.

Factor 4 - Volume D: Price will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and accuracy of proposed prices but will not receive a rating.

Evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance. Product Access and Availability is more important than the Price factor. The Price factor will become significantly more important as the non-price factors approach equality.

2.2 Factor 1: Product Access and Availability

To receive a “Pass” rating an Offeror must attest that the Offeror has the capability to acquire the products identified in Appendix A – Required Products through agreement with suppliers or third-parties (open market, resellers, distributors, etc.), in the volume required in this solicitation. Any product the Offeror deems is equal to the brand name item per the characteristics provided in the statement of work must be provided to the technical evaluation team, at the Offeror’s expense, no later than 18 January 2017. Vendors may provide substitute items for the brand name item for evaluation as well. These items will be treated with the same standard as equal items and must be provided to the technical evaluation team no later Any product an Offeror presents as substitute for items that are in low supply and would serve as a substitute for a brand name or equal items must also be received no later than 18 January 2017. If an Offeror does not provide at least one product in each of the items categories specified in the statement of work, then the offer receive a “Fail” rating and will be ineligible for award, with no further evaluation.

2.3 Factor 2: Management Approach

The offer must describe their processes to fulfilling the government’s requirements. This description shall include but is not limited to the following:

How the Offeror manages their product suppliers and subcontractor(s).

How the Offeror manages their inventory to ensure timely delivery of OSAP Kits and Other Items, on time in full.

What are the quality procedures to ensure all kits meet the configuration requirements of the statement of work.

Description of organization structure to meet the requirements of fulfilling the delivery of OSAP Kits and Other Items

Minimum requirements: The Offeror has an established process to deliver 40 to 60 Kits and 40 to 60 Other Items within 30 days of an order.

Rating Description

Exceptional Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; meets or exceed some of any desired qualifications; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses or deficiencies; which do not significantly impact probability of success or performance.

Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weakness or deficiencies; may contain weaknesses or deficiencies which, if not corrected, could impact the probability of success or performance.

Marginal

Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; has a low probability of success; contains major or significant numbers of weaknesses or deficiencies that require substantial revision and which, if not corrected, would impact probability of success or performance.

Unacceptable Fails to meet most or all of the minimum requirements of the criteria; has a very low probability of success; contains significant and important weaknesses that require substantial revision and which, if not corrected, would indicate extreme risks of substandard performance.

2.4 Factor 3: Past Performance

The following definitions will be used to assess Offeror’s past performance of sourcing and delivering kits similar to the requirements specified in the statement of work. Past performance examples will be rated individually using the adjectival rating below and then will be aggregated to determine an overall all rating.

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 same 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.

The Offeror shall provide at least two (2) but no more than ten (10) examples of relevant past performance for work that is currently or that has been performed in the past three years. Past performance examples shall be provided on the Past Performance Profile Sheets provided. Offeror’s without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

2.5 Factor 4: Price

The Government will assess and evaluate the Offeror’s proposal, Volume D Price Quote, for the total price to determine reasonableness and completeness. The Price Quote must be provided on the Appendix B – Price Template. Offeror is required to provide information in the green shaded spaces of the Price Template. The Government reserves the right to do a price analysis if deemed necessary. Any inconsistencies in price must be clearly justified by the Offeror.

The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base year requirement. Evaluations of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

2.6 Use of Contractors in Source Selection Evaluation

Offerors are advised that Contractor personnel may participate as non-voting facilitators on the Source Selection Evaluation Board. The name of the participating Contractors that may be used to provide advisor(s) for this requirement are GCS, Inc. a privately held company incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia.