DRAFT BOS Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award

TINKER BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES (T-BOSS)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Award Procedures

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

Contract award will be made utilizing the two-step sealed bidding procedures described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 14.5, as supplemented in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically on Acquisition.Gov at https://www.acquisition.gov/. Step-one consists of the request for, submission, evaluation, and (if necessary) discussion of a technical proposal. No pricing is involved. Step-two involves the submission of sealed priced bids by those who submitted acceptable technical proposals in step one. Contract award will be made to the Bidder who is determined technically acceptable in step-one with the lowest evaluated price in step-two, considering only price and the price-related factors specified elsewhere in the solicitation IAW FAR 52.214-10 - Contract Award-Sealed Bidding.

1.1.1. The contracting officer may proceed directly with step two if there are sufficient acceptable proposals to ensure adequate price competition under step two, and if further time, effort and delay to make additional proposals acceptable and thereby increase competition would not be in the Government’s interest. If this is not the case, the contracting officer shall request bidders whose proposals may be made acceptable to submit additional clarifying or supplementing information.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.3. Rejection of Bids

The Government may reject individual bids IAW FAR 14.404-2.

1.4. Step One

1.4.1. Correction Potential of Bids

In step one, the Government will consider the correction potential of any technical proposal. If a Mistake in Bid is not considered correctable IAW FAR 14.407-3, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Bidder will be categorized as unacceptable and may be eliminated from the competition.

1.4.2. Requests for Additional Information

The Government intends to proceed to step two without requesting further information but reserves the right to verify offerors technical proposal and conduct discussions if necessary.

DRAFT

Therefore, it is imperative that Bidders submit their best technical proposals initially. The contracting officer may proceed directly with step two if there are sufficient acceptable proposals to ensure adequate price competition under step two, and if further time, effort and delay to make additional proposals acceptable and thereby increase competition would not be in the Government’s interest. If this is not the case, the contracting officer shall request bidders whose proposals may be made acceptable to submit additional clarifying or supplementing information.

1.4.3. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Bidders are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, delivery, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements in addition to those identified as technical subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Bidder being ineligible for award.

Bidders must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

1.4.4. Site Visits

The Government may conduct site visits during step one to gather information for judging the Bidder’s potential for correcting deficiencies, allow inspection of government property, or other areas useful in assisting the offerors with their understanding of the requirements. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable technical subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Bidder’s written proposal.

1.2. Step Two

In the second step, only bids based upon technical proposals determined to be acceptable, either initially or as a result of submission of further information, will be considered for awards. In step two, award will be made to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, considering only price and the price-related factors specified elsewhere in the solicitation IAW FAR 52.214-10 - Contract Award-Sealed Bidding.

2. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable, or Unacceptable. Any proposal which modifies or fails to conform to the essential requirements or specifications of the request for technical proposals shall be categorized as unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 3. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 4.

2.2. Step 1 -- Factor 1 – Technical

The technical evaluation will be based on each Bidder’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each Bidder’s technical volume. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each Bidder. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Bidder must be rated acceptable in each subfactor.

A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor.

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. The amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement does not require a major proposal revision.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor One: Transition

The Government will assess the bidder’s proposed transition-in approach. Bidders are required to present all the information as stated in Instruction to Bidders (ITB). This subfactor assesses the bidder’s procedures and methods to transition into full contract performance. To be acceptable, the bidder’s technical proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale that their approach will ensure they are operational by and prepared to fully perform all contract requirements by end of the transition period of performance with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance in accordance with PWS 1.7.1, including section sub-paragraphs.

2.2.2. Subfactor Two: Program Management

The Government will assess the Bidder’s proposed approach to meeting the program management requirements. Bidders are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Bidders (ITB), Technical Subfactor 2, paragraph 4.8.4. The subfactor is met when the Bidder’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components:

(a) A process for program management that ensures all aspects of the CE operations program are met IAW PWS 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, and 1.3.11, including section sub-paragraphs.

(b) A process for safety procedures which ensures all safety requirements are met IAW PWS 1.6.21, including section sub-paragraphs.

(c) A quality control process that ensures all quality control requirements are met IAW PWS

1.6.20, including section sub-paragraphs.

2.2.3. Subfactor Three: Resource/Personnel Management

The Government will assess the bidder’s proposed resource/personnel management approach.

Bidders are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Bidders (ITB).

To be acceptable, the bidder’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

(a) A manning process that ensures the offeror will successfully maintain a capable workforce to accomplish the entire scope of effort and successfully handle surges/variables in workload requirements IAW PWS 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, and Appendix 4.9 Minimum Team Complement, including section sub-paragraphs.

(b) An organizational approach and management structure which ensures an appropriately qualified, sufficiently staffed workforce to perform all PWS requirements and skill sets. In addition, the offeror’s approach must ensure successful management of all subcontractor performance.

(c) A materials acquisition approach that meets all PWS requirements, reduces material handling and ensures best value is delivered to the government.

(d) An inventory management approach that ensures all inventory requirements are met IAW

PWS 1.5.2, 1.8.6, 3.1.8., 3.1.9 and 3.1.10, including section subparagraphs.

2.2.4. Subfactor Four: Experience/Qualifications

The Government will assess the Bidder’s experience and qualifications as stated in the Instruction to Bidders (ITB). To be acceptable, the bidder’s proposal must provide convincing rationale that their experience and qualifications will meet the requirements for all of the essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

2.3. Step 2 -- Factor 2 – Price

2.3.1. General Instructions

Price bids will be evaluated for price reasonableness (including completeness), balanced pricing, price realism and Total Evaluated Price. A bidder whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, a bidder’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the ITB pricing instructions.

2.3.2. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Completeness is part of the evaluation for Reasonableness. Bids will be reviewed for completeness and compliance with the Instructions to Bidders. Incomplete bids will be considered unawardable.

2.3.3. Balanced Pricing

Bidders’ proposals will be reviewed for balanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Bidder explaining variances that appear unbalanced, to include rationale for any CLIN price increase greater than 5% from one year to another, or any CLIN price decrease from one year to another. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

(a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

(b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.3.4. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in determining price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.3.5. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices/rates, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data, other than certified cost or pricing data, as believed necessary to support, justify, or clarify their proposed pricing. All pricing information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all bidders. The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2). These calculations will include all contract line items to include all options.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The cost reimbursement line items will not be evaluated.

2.4.1. Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest cent. Compliance with the instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

2.4.2 Submission of Pricing Matrix

The Government will confirm receipt of a complete, electronically-encoded Pricing Matrix (Attachment X) in the required format and utilize it to evaluate the Offeror’s TEP.