DRAFT - Follow-On AWSM MA IDIQ - CONUS - Section M.docx

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis of Award

M.1.1 GENERAL The Government plans to award a firm-fixed-price, multiple award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity type contract for the Army Watercraft Sustainment Maintenance (AWSM) Program- Zone 1 Continental United States (CONUS) as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to choose not to award a contract if such action is in the Government’s best interest.

M.1.1.1 There are three evaluation factors:

a. Past Performance Factor

b. Price Factor

c. Small Business Participation Factor

The relative order of importance of these Factors are described in Section M.4 below.

M.1.1.2 It is the Government’s intent to award approximately 15 contracts. This intent does not bind the Government to award a certain number of contracts. Selection of the proposals which are most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government will be determined on a Source Selection trade-off basis from offeror proposals which are otherwise eligible for award. The Government will follow the source selection process set forth in Section M.3 below.

M.1.1.3 Importance of Price. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is otherwise eligible for award (see M.1.2). This may not be the Offeror with the lowest evaluated Price Factor. However, the closer the Offeror's evaluations are to each other in those Factors other than the Price Factor, the more important the Price Factor becomes in the decision. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the other two evaluation Factors stated herein, price may be controlling when:

(a) Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-price factors; or

(b) The advantages of a higher rated, higher priced proposal are not considered to be worth the price premium.

M.1.2 Eligibility for Award. Award will only be made to an offeror who is eligible for award. To be eligible for award:

a. The offeror must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) (see provision 52.204-7); and

b. The offeror must be determined responsible (See Section M.3.6); and

c. The proposal must not contain a Deficiency(s) (per FAR Part 15.001); and

d. Have a valid and current Master Vessel Agreement (MVA) (See Section L.4.7).

M.2 REJECTION OF OFFERS

M.2.1 The Government may reject any proposal if doing so is in the Government's best interest at any time after receipt of proposals. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following proposal conditions:

a. The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the instructions in Section L of this solicitation (e.g. a proposal provides some data, but omits significant material data and information required by Section L, fails to follow proposal key proposal instructions or format requirements in Section L); or

b. When a proposal merely offers to perform work according to the RFP terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFP terms and does not provide support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation; or

c. The proposal proposes exceptions to the solicitation requirements, attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or solicitation terms and conditions; or

d. The proposal contains one or more OCIs that cannot be avoided or mitigated. Refer to Section L.2.4 of this solicitation, "Organizational Conflict of Interest."; or

e. The proposal is unbalanced as to price. See Section M.4.2; or

f. The proposal’s acceptance period does not meet the Government’s required minimum acceptance period (Refer to Section L.1.2); or

g. The proposal is not in English (American Standard) or in US Dollars; or

h. A proposal submitted for less than all the requirements called for by this solicitation

M.3 Source Selection Process.

M.3.1 Compliance Review. After receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offeror's proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the solicitation instructions, and whether the proposal meets any of the conditions listed in M.2, Rejection of Offerors.

M.3.2 Evaluation Process. Evaluated proposals which are eligible for award will be subject to the Source Selection Trade-off process, considering the three evaluation factors and their relative order of importance as cited in Section M.4, to identify the proposal which represents the best value to the Government. The Government will weigh the evaluated proposals (other than the Price Factor) against the total evaluated price to the Government. As part of the best value determination, the relative strengths and weaknesses of each offeror's proposal shall be considered, as specified below, in addition to the other evaluation methods described below. Selection of the successful Offeror(s) shall be made following an assessment of each proposal, based on the response to the information requested in Section L of this solicitation and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described in Section M.

M.3.3 Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA is the official designated to direct the source selection process and select the Offeror(s) for contract award.

M.3.4 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). A SSEB has been established by the Government to evaluate proposals in response to this solicitation. The SSEB is comprised of technically qualified individuals who have been selected to conduct this evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria for this solicitation. Careful, full and impartial consideration will be given to the evaluation of all proposals received pursuant to this solicitation.

M.3.5 Award without Discussions: This RFP includes FAR Provision 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors Competitive Acquisition in Section L which advises offerors that the Government intends to make award without conducting discussions. Where awards will be made without discussions, exchanges with offerors are limited to Clarifications as defined in FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offerors best terms from a Price and non-Price Factor standpoint. However, under FAR 52.212-1(g), the Government reserves the right to hold discussions, as determined by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO).

M.3.6 Determination of Responsibility. Per FAR 9.103, the Government will place a contract only with an Offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible or refer the matter to the SBA per FAR 19.602. A prospective Offeror, in order to be eligible for award for this acquisition, must be able to demonstrate it meets the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. As a part of this determination, the Contracting Officer may utilize the Offeror's proposed prices, as well as other information, to determine if the prospective contractor has adequate financial resources to perform the contract. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey on any or all Offeror(s) or its subcontractors to aid the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of each Offeror's proposal and ensure a selected Offeror is responsible. To verify an Offeror meets the responsibility criteria at FAR 9.104, the Government reserves the right to request additional information, to include, but not limited to the following:

(a) Arrange a visit to the Offeror(s) plant and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey; or

(b) Request an Offeror provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information. If an Offeror does not submit the requested information within seven working days from the date of the receipt of the request, or if an Offeror refuses to provide the Government access to its facility, the Government may determine the Offeror to be non-responsible. If the Government visits the Offeror's facility, the Offeror shall ensure current data relevant to the proposal is available for Government personnel to review.

M.3.7 Consistency. Each volume of the offeror’s proposal shall be consistent with the other proposal volumes. The offeror should provide supporting documentation in sufficient detail to permit a complete evaluation of the proposal. The Government may conduct a crosswalk between the information provided in offerors’ proposal volumes to assess whether the offeror submits consistent proposal information. Any inconsistency between the total contract amount in price and the total contract amount in small business, may result in an offeror being assessed with increased risk in the Small Business Participation Factor.

M.3.8. Property Management Plan (PMP)

The submitted PMP will be reviewed by the contracting organization’s Industrial Property Management Specialist or Contracting Officer to ensure it meets PMP requirements as part of the Contracting Officer’s Determination of Responsibility. PMP requirements include:

a. Does the PMP include an overview description of the contractor’s Property Management System (PMS)?

b. Does the PMP include the purpose of the contractor’s PMS? What laws, regulations, and/or instructions does it comply with?

c. Does the PMP include the scope of the contractor’s PMS? Does it include company assets, subcontractor assets, and/or customer assets (e.g. Government Property)?

d. Does the PMP address the ten (10) outcomes of Government Property?

i. Acquisition of Property

ii. Receipt of Government Property

iii. Records of Government property

iv. Physical inventory

v. Subcontractor control

vi. Reports

vii. Relief of stewardship responsibility and liability

viii. Utilizing Government property

ix. Maintenance

x. Property closeout

e. If the PMP includes standards (e.g. voluntary consensus standards, industry leading practices) that the contractor intends to use in the management of Government Property, are they applicable to the tasks being performed on the effort? Were they made available to the Government for review purposes?

f. Does the PMP meet the requirements as specified in the solicitation, at a minimum?

g. Does the contractor adequately address all of the special points highlighted in the solicitation for this specific action?

h. Will the contract have Item Unique Identification (IUID) requirements? If so, does the PMP address how the contractor will meet these requirements?

i. Does the contractor address how it will meet the Government Property reporting requirements? (e.g., intervals, format of reports, who/whom they will be reported to, how they will be delivered (Email, Hard Copies)).

IAW FAR 45.201(b), “Contractor is responsible for all costs related to making the property available for use, such as payment of all transportation, installation or rehabilitation costs.”

M.3.9 Price Adjustments

In making the award decision, the Government will review proposals to determine if any other price adjustments (beyond those already included in the total evaluated price) are required IAW the FAR, DFARS, or clauses or provisions contained within this solicitation. If an additional price adjustment is determined to be applicable, then the Government will develop a final evaluated price for those offerors impacted by the adjustment(s) and base the final award decision on this final price. IAW FAR 52.219-4(b)(2), if the HUBZone price adjustment is applicable, then all other price adjustments described in the solicitation shall be applied before the application of the HUBZone price adjustments.

M.4 Evaluation Factors. The Government will assess each Offeror in three factors: (1) Past Performance (2) Price (3) Small Business Participation.

a. Factor 1: Past Performance (M.4.1)

b. Factor 2: Price (M.4.2)

c. Factor 3: Small Business Participation (M.4.3)

The relative order of importance is Past Performance is more important than Price which is slightly more important than Small Business Participation. As required to be defined by FAR 15.304(e), the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

M.4.1 Volume I: Past Performance Factor

M.4.1.1 The Government will conduct a Performance Confidence Assessment to establish a Confidence Assessment Rating for each offeror. The Confidence Assessment Rating assigned will be based on the offeror’s Recent and Relevant performance record and the expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort described in both L.3.1.1(c)(i) and (c)(ii).

M.4.1.2 Contracts submitted in the Past Performance Factor volume of the offeror's proposal will not be considered if the Government determines them to be not Recent, not Relevant, or lacking any credible past performance information. Offerors without a record of Recent and Relevant past performance information upon which to base a meaningful confidence assessment will be rated as "Neutral Confidence", which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

M.4.1.3 The offeror may also be evaluated on past contract performance information based on internal Government or private source information including additional contracts, beyond those submitted by the offeror and reserves the right to use any information received or obtained as part of its evaluation. The Government may contact any of the references the offeror provides, and reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation.

M.4.1.4 Past performance which is identified in the offeror’s Past Performance Factor volume but is not supported with the information requested in Section L may be determined not Relevant. In addition, if any other proposal volume indicates the Government will not realize the benefit of the cited past performance during contract performance, then the cited past performance may be determined not Relevant.

M.4.1.5 In evaluating the offeror's performance history, the Government may compare the offeror's deliveries or performance to the Contract's original delivery or performance schedule, unless the delay was Government-caused. Schedule extensions that were the fault of the offeror, even if consideration was provided, may be counted against the offeror.

M.4.2 Volume II Price Factor

M.4.2.1 The Price Factor evaluation will result in a determination of the Total Evaluated Price, price reasonableness, and whether there is unbalanced pricing of the offeror’s price proposal.

M.4.2.1.1 Total Evaluated Price. The Total Evaluated price will consist of the total proposed price as calculated in the “Summary” Tab of Attachment 0003, plus if applicable any other price adjustments, for evaluation purposes only, that are required in accordance with the (i) FAR; (ii) DFARS; or (iii) the RFP (to include RFP attachments).

M.4.2.1.2 Price Reasonableness

M.4.2.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate whether or not the Offeror’s Total Proposed Price is reasonable.

M.4.2.1.2.2 Reasonableness: A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may make a determination of reasonableness by any means allowable under FAR 15.404-1.

M.4.2.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for more information on unbalanced pricing.

M.4.3 Volume III Small Business Participation

M.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offeror’s approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing opportunities in meeting the small business participation goals identified in this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the extent of small business participation proposed and credibility of the data provided in the proposal measured against the Small Business Participation Factor goals for this solicitation. As part of this assessment, the Government will consider the Offeror’s performance in complying with past Small Business Subcontracting Plans if they were required on prior contracts. Please note the solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount' which is defined for this Small Business Participation Factor as total proposed amount for all of the Basic CLINs and all of the Option CLINs. The Government's small business participation goals for this solicitation are:

_77_ % Small Business (SB) _12_ % Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) _12_ % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) __7_ % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB) __7_ % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) __7_ % Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

For Other Than Small Business Offerors ONLY, the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal is BOTH of the following:

_12_ % of ‘Total Contract Amount’ ___5 % of ‘Total Subcontracting Amount’

M.4.3.2 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Government Goals.

Where the Offeror proposes small business participation higher than the Government's goals and the Government has determined that achievement of said small business participation is credible, or where the Offeror is assessed as credibly being able to achieve or exceed the Government's goals, the Government may assign the Offeror a strength against such proposal. Where the Offeror proposes small business participation lower than the Government's goals, or where the Offeror is assessed as not credibly being able to achieve the Government's goals, the Government may assign a weakness or significant weakness against such proposal.

M.4.3.3 Contractual Goals.

If the awardee is other than a small business, the data submitted as part of the Small Business Participation Factor shall be consistent with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan which will be incorporated in the resultant contract, regardless of whether the Offeror proposed goals for the Small Business Participation Factor above, at, or below the Government's solicitation goals.