Draft RFP Criteria Section L Instructions and M Evaluation.pdf

CUI

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Attachment 1

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

Proposal Submission Instructions

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

Offeror shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal.

Proposals shall be clear and unambiguous. Proposals that do not comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal may render the Offeror ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not comply with the proposal submission instructions.

1.1 Website

Offerors must be properly registered in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module, System for Award Management (SAM.gov), and the Joint Certification Program (JCP) in order to receive controlled attachments. Offerors may obtain information on SAM registration and annual confirmation requirements by calling 1-866- 606-8220 or via the internet at https://www.sam.gov. Information about the JCP is located at https://www.dla.mil/Logistics-Operations/Services/JCP/. Information about the PIEE Solicitation Module is located at: https://piee.eb.mil. Offerors must request access to the controlled attachments via SAM.gov. The Contracting Officer will review JCP and allow access to controlled documents by Cage Code if requesting vendor is properly registered in JCP. The controlled documents will be located in PIEE Solicitation Module; therefore, the Offeror will need to obtain the controlled documents through PIEE Solicitation Module.

1.2 Proposal Submission Module/Portal

Proposals shall be submitted through the PIEE Solicitation Module located at https://piee.eb.mil by the solicitation closing date and time specified on the cover letter of this solicitation, block (8), in order to be considered for award. It is not permissible to upload a link to an internet-based data center (e.g. Google cloud or Dropbox). Offeror shall submit all required proposal information directly in the PIEE Solicitation Module. In the rare event the module is down or inaccessible, Offeror shall immediately notify the cognizant Contracting Officer, Allyson Nicholson, email allyson.d.nicholson.civ@us.navy.mil and Contract Specialist, Shawna Gainey, email shawna.y.gainey.civ@us.navy.mil, for the solicitation via e-mail prior to the solicitation closing date and time. Offeror shall also contact the PIEE helpdesk to register a help ticket that the PIEE Solicitation Module is down or inoperable prior to the closing time and date. In the rare event of a portal malfunction, arrangements must be made with the Contracting Officer cognizant for the solicitation prior to the solicitation closing date and time in order to submit a proposal electronically outside the portal. Failure to submit a complete proposal prior to the solicitation closing date and time will render the proposal late and unacceptable.

Any amendments to the subject solicitation will be posted through the PIEE Solicitation Module. The complete solicitation package, including all amendments, should be received and reviewed prior to submitting a response. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to obtain all amendments and/or other applicable documents prior to submission of the proposal.

Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals and any proposal modifications in the portal by the time specified in the solicitation. Any proposal modification not submitted in the portal by the exact time specified for receipt of proposal is “late” and will not be considered. The solicitation will close at the exact date and time specified in the solicitation.

The time and date of proposal receipt will be the upload completion/delivery time and date recorded within PIEE Solicitation Module. Do not assume that electronic submission will occur instantaneously. Large files (e.g. 10MB or more) will take some time to upload. Offerors should time their upload effort with prudence by not waiting until the last few minutes—this will allow for unexpected delays in the transmittal process.

Offerors are encouraged to keep a copy of the upload confirmation for their record.

1.3 Requirement Questions

Offerors shall submit questions and feedback requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by submitting through PIEE Solicitation Module. Offerors are advised they must have an active Proposal Manager role in PIEE and are to submit questions via the offer interface. Submit questions as if submitting an offer in PIEE under the correct solicitation number. File Name shall be #CompanyCage#_Offeror_Questions. It is required that all questions be received within 20 calendar days from the date this solicitation is issued. All questions and answers will be posted to PIEE Solicitation Module via an amendment to the solicitation.

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

In order to maximize efficiency and minimize the time for proposal evaluation, all Offerors shall submit their proposals in accordance with the format and content specified below. The requirements below apply equally to subcontractors.

Proposals that do not meet the below requirements may be deemed unresponsive and may not be eligible for award. The electronic proposal shall be prepared so that if printed, the proposal meets the following format requirements:

8.5 x 11 inch paper Single-spaced typed lines 1 inch margins Font text shall be 12-point Times New Roman, except for:

o Graphs, graphics, tables, or charts used to supplement the proposal text shall use Times New Roman that is no smaller than 9-point font size.

o Microsoft Office Excel spreadsheets shall use Times New Roman that is no smaller than 9-point font size. These Excel spreadsheets shall be formatted for printing in landscape orientation such that all row and column headings appear on each printed page. All spreadsheets shall include calculations in the cells showing all formulas. Do not enter hard data where formulas were used to calculate the entered value.

No hyperlinks Proposals shall be in English and in U.S. dollars.

Proposals shall be Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) 2010 and newer versions or Adobe Acrobat (PDF) compatible. PDF files shall be searchable when reviewed electronically.

2.1 Cover Letter and Table of Contents

Offeror shall include a cover letter and table of contents for each proposal volume. The cover letter shall identify the solicitation number, proposal volume and title, and the Offeror’s name. The cover letter and table of contents will not count against page limitations.

2.2 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Offer shall include a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms for each proposal volume that provides corresponding definitions. Glossaries will not count against page limitations.

2.3 Page Numbering System

Offeror shall use a standard page numbering system to facilitate proposal references. All pages shall be numbered consecutively for each section within a volume. Charts, graphs, and other inserted materials shall be included in the page numbering system.

2.4 Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data

Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall mark the title page with the following legend:

"This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this Offeror as a result of, or in connection with, the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]";

Offerors shall also mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

"Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal."

2.5 File Naming Convention

All proposal files shall include the Offeror's company name, volume #, document name, and other useful identifying information. For example:

Company Vol I A Cover Letter Company Vol I B Solicitation Fill-ins Company Vol I C Warranty Company Vol II A Manufacturing Plan Company Vol II B Management Plan Company Vol II C Quality Program Company Vol III A Past Performance Reference for N0002426RJR98 Company Vol III B Past Performance Questionnaires Company Vol IV A Section B Pricing Company Vol IV B Price Proposal Spreadsheet Company Vol IV C Price Proposal Narrative

3.0 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT

Offeror shall organize its proposal and include all proposal content exactly as described herein. Offeror shall organize its proposal into separate volumes and adhere to page limitations as delineated in the Proposal Organization Table below. Page limitations will be treated as maximums. If exceeded, excess pages may not be read or considered in proposal evaluation. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages.

Section L Table 1 - Proposal Organization Table

Volume Proposal Content Page Limitation VOLUME I - Contract Documentation (Factor I)

Subfactor A: Cover Letter Subfactor B: Solicitation Fill-ins Subfactor C: Warranty

No page limit

VOLUME II -

Technical Approach (Factor II)

Subfactor A: Manufacturing Plan Subfactor B: Management Plan Subfactor C: Quality Plan

25 pages 25 pages 25 pages

VOLUME III- Past Performance (Factor III )

Subfactor A: Past Performance References Subfactor B: Past Performance Questionnaire

3 pages per reference

Volume IV - Price Proposal (Factor IV)

Subfactor A: Section B Pricing Subfactor B: Price Proposal Spreadsheet(s) Subfactor C: Price Proposal Narrative

No page limit

3.1 VOLUME I -CONTRACTOR DOUCMENTATION (FACTOR 1)

3.1.1 Cover Letter

Offeror shall provide a cover letter with the following information:

a. Solicitation number;

b. Company name, CAGE code, Unique Entity ID (UEI), address, e-mail address, and telephone number;

c. A statement confirming agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item;

d. A statement that the proposal is valid through 210 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals;

e. Names, titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the Offeror's behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

f. DCAA, DCMA, and DFAS office POC, including branch location, contact name, telephone number and e-mail address;

g. Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal;

h. Identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of the Offeror's proposal;

i. A copy of the Offeror's SAM.gov registration information; and

j. Identify any exceptions and/or assumptions. Offerors are not encouraged to take exceptions and/or make assumptions. If the Offeror has any, they shall be discussed in detail and the volume, section, and/or page shall be identified.

Identified exceptions and/or assumptions may adversely impact the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

3.1.2 Solicitation Fill-ins

Offeror shall complete all solicitation fill-Ins including any solicitation amendments and provide a copy within Volume I.

3.1.3 Warranty

Offeror shall provide their warranty.

3.2 VOLUME II- TECHNICAL APPROCAH (FACTOR II)

The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of their technical capability to produce the Timed Firing Device (TFD) to meet the requirements of the technical data package and the solicitation. The Offeror’s description shall include, at a minimum:

3.2.1 Subfactor A - Manufacturing Plan

The Offeror shall describe the major assembly sequence chart and anticipated manufacturing process flow beginning with receipt of incoming hardware and materials, inspection, marking, final assembly, testing, and packaging of the TFD. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive manufacturing plan detailing the end-to-end production process, including assembly, integration of components (LEEFI (Low Energy Exploding Foil Initiator), Shock Tube Initiator, training chip), and software installation for the PC/Android App. Offeror shall include a description of the proposed facilities, necessary equipment and tooling, essential skills (technical staff, experienced engineers, quality control staff, etc.); and proposed controls to provide traceability of components during the production process, temporary storage, and interplant shipment. The plan should identify key suppliers for critical components, outline strategies for mitigating supply chain disruptions, and ensure the timely availability of all necessary parts and materials. If an Offeror does not currently possess the required capabilities in-house, the proposal must demonstrate a realistic plan to achieve the required capability. The Offeror shall indicate which components, including parts, assemblies, and processes that will be manufactured in-house, are subcontracted, or are purchased material/parts. The Offeror must provide a breakdown of all the proposed key subcontractors and their involvement in the production of the TFD.

The offeror shall describe their integrated approach to proactively controlling manufacturing processes to minimize variation and systematically prevent the creation of defects.

3.2.2 Subfactor B - Management Plan

The Offeror shall provide details on all system management, business processes, and plans to control technical and schedule risk. The details shall include a description of each appropriate system. The Offeror shall describe engineering, hardware, resources, and risk management to fully support its production lead-time and monthly production rates proposed. The Offeror shall describe its process to document and control the manufacturing processes with respect to their impact on performance, safety, and storage life expectancy.

The proposal must include a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that outlines all major tasks, milestones, dependencies, and a critical path from contract award to final delivery.

The offeror shall identify potential risks (cost risks, schedule risks, and technical risks) and present a credible mitigation plan for each identified risk.

The offeror shall describe how it plans to comply with the United States, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations regarding the storage and shipment of explosives. This specifically deals with the procurement of the Plastic Encapsulated Detonator on a Printed Circuit Board, “LEEFI.”

3.2.3 Subfactor C - Quality Plan

The Offeror shall provide a detailed Quality Plan with a comprehensive review of the proposed Quality System and of the proposed approach for meeting the Quality Assurance requirements of the solicitation. The plan should be realistic, achievable, and supportable.

Quality Plan shall include:

A detailed description of the plans/procedures for inspection and testing of all assemblies, subassemblies and parts in order to meet the requirements of the solicitation. This must include testing the fixed time delays (30s, 3m, 10m), the 24-hour programming function, underwater capability, and the functionality of the LEEFI, Shock Tube Initiator, and the training chip's beep/LED flash.

A detailed description of the processes for detection, segregation and handling of non-conforming material.

A detailed description of the process by which the Quality System’s requirements will flow down to subcontractors and how the Offeror will verify subcontractor’s compliance to the contractual quality requirements.

A detailed description of how the offeror’s manufacturing processes can meet the specified tolerances of the product’s Critical Characteristics. This may include the use of statistical process control (SPC) and other quality control methodologies.

3.3 VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR III)

Offeror shall provide three past performance references, if available, which shall reflect recent experience performed within the last three calendar years of the solicitation release date that demonstrate experiences relevant to the solicitation’s requirements. Offeror shall describe how the past performance references are relevant including details about how it is similar in scope and complexity to this solicitation’s requirements.

Offeror shall provide information regarding recent and relevant past performance in the area of delivery timeliness. The Offeror shall provide the original contract delivery schedule, any revised contract delivery schedules, and actual deliveries that occurred for each contract.

Please note the information requested is not production or shipping schedules, but contractual delivery schedules. Therefore, the date of Government or customer acceptance of product represents when actual delivery occurred on the contract. If there were any revisions to the delivery schedule, the Offeror shall provide the reasons for the delivery schedule revision(s), whether the Offeror paid consideration for the schedule revision(s), and corrective actions taken to prevent future delays. If there were any late deliveries, the Offeror shall provide reasons why the customer did not revise the delivery schedule and if any additional penalties were incurred on the contract due to late deliveries.

3.3.1 Past Performance References

Offeror shall include the following for each past performance reference:

(a) Contract number

(b) Contract award date

(c) Contract type

(d) Dollar amount of award

(e) Government or commercial contracting point of contact name, telephone number, and email address

(f) Government or commercial technical point of contract name, telephone number, and email address

(g) Description of work performed and how the work is relevant to the solicitation’s requirements.

(h) Narrative of modifications to quality, price, and/or schedule

3.3.2 Past Performance Questionnaire

Offeror shall contact past performance references directly and request that they complete the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Solicitation Attachment) and submit directly to the Contract Specialist. Under no circumstances shall the questionnaires be returned to the Offeror. Any information provided by the Offeror’s references is subject to verification and validation by the Government during the evaluation process.

3.4 VOLUME IV - PRICE PROPOSAL (FACTOR IV)

3.4.1 Section B Pricing

Offeror shall submit prices listed in Section B. Pricing shall not be submitted in any other area of the proposal. The Section B pricing will take precedence should there be any discrepancies with any other pricing information submitted. The prices shall include all shipping and be proposed with F.O.B. Destination. Offeror shall provide any recommended quantity break changes to improve price to the Government.

3.4.2 Price Proposal Spreadsheet(s)

Offeror shall submit a price proposal spreadsheet(s), which aligns with the Section B pricing. The price proposal spreadsheet(s) shall include calculations in the cells showing all formulas used to calculate the values if the value is a calculated value. Do not enter hard data where formulas were used to calculate the entered value. All values shall be no more than two digits beyond the decimal. Request that values use the =round(formula,2) in excel to round to nearest cent.

3.4.3 Price Proposal Narrative

Offeror shall provide a price proposal narrative that fully substantiates the reasonableness of the proposed prices. The price proposal narrative shall fully align with and support the proposed Section B pricing.

Offeror shall propose reasonable prices within its proposal. Offeror is advised that proposing unreasonably lower prices without substantial justification will be an indication that the Offeror does not have a clear understanding of the requirements or does not have the requisite capability to support the effort. Any inconsistency between promised performance in the technical approach (e.g. Volume II – Technical Approach) and the proposed price must be explained in the proposal. Any inconsistency, if unexplained, may raise a fundamental question of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and may adversely impact the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

(End of addendum)

Attachment 2

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

1.0 GENERAL

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government under the selection criteria set forth in this solicitation.

The proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation, and all requirements set forth in this solicitation. A proposal that fails to meet any material requirement may render the proposal ineligible for award and may be excluded from further consideration.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award based upon initial offers;

therefore, Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. The Government may conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. The Government anticipates a single award resulting from this solicitation; however, the Government reserves the right to no award depending on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

The following terms and definitions will be used for proposal evaluations:

Deficiency is 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.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award decision will be determined based on the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors identified within this solicitation. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal demonstrates the best value to the Government based on the evaluation factors. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. A tradeoff analysis may be used when it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest total evaluated cost Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The comparison will trade off differences in technical capability based on the non-cost factors and total evaluated cost. If one Offeror has both the better technical capability and the lower total evaluated cost, then that Offeror will be the better value. If one Offeror has the better technical capability and a higher total evaluated cost, the Government will decide whether the difference in technical capability is worth the difference in price. If it is determined that the difference in technical capability is worth the difference in price, then the more capable, higher-priced Offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced Offeror will be the better value.

3.0 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate Offeror's proposal with the evaluation factors to determine the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors and associated subfactors have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between competing proposals. An adjectival rating will be assessed at the Factor level for each Offeror’s technical proposal.

Section M Table 1: Evaluation Factors

Factor Subfactor I. Contract Documentation A: Cover Letter

B: Solicitation Fill-ins C: Warranty

II. Technical Approach A: Manufacturing Plan B: Management Plan C: Quality Plan

III. Past Performance A: Past Performance References B: Past Performance Questionnaire

IV. Price A: Section B Pricing B: Price Proposal Spreadsheet(s) C: Price Proposal Narrative

Factor I does not have any relative importance weighting since it is being evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Factor II is significant more important than Factor III, and Factor III is significantly more important than Factor IV. Factor II and III (factors other than price), when combined are more important than Factor IV (price). The price factor becomes more important as the degree of equality of Factors Other Than Price increases, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

Under Factor II, Subfactors A-C carry the same weight. Factor IV Price will not be rated but will be considered in determining the best value to the Government. Past Performance information may be evaluated upon receipt prior to the closing date of the solicitation. The best value determination may result in the Government awarding to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Offeror.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor I: Contract Documentation (VOLUME I)

The Government will evaluate the submitted contract documentation to ensure that all the required information has been provided and to verify compliance with requirements. The Government will assign an adjectival rating of “pass” or “fail” indicating whether the requirements have been fully satisfied. A “fail” rating would preclude the offeror from an award on initials but may be correctable if discussions are held.

The Government may waive minor oversights and irregularities in the submitted contract documentation provided that they are considered immaterial in its judgment. The Government reserves the right to not evaluate Factors II-IV if Offeror is assigned a “fail” adjectival rating under Factor I.

Factor II: Technical Approach (VOLUME II)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates specific understanding, capability, and experience to successfully perform the requirement, and the soundness of the proposed technical approach.

Subfactor A - Manufacturing Plan.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Manufacturing Plan to assess the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive and feasible approach to producing the TFD. This evaluation will consider the clarity and logic of the major assembly sequence chart and the anticipated manufacturing process flow. The Government will assess the adequacy of the proposed facilities, equipment, and tooling to meet production requirements. The evaluation will also consider the depth of the Offeror's technical staff, experienced engineers, and quality control personnel. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed controls for the traceability of components. Furthermore, the Government will assess the Offeror's supply chain management strategy, including the identification of key suppliers and the credibility of the plans to mitigate supply chain disruptions. The breakdown of in-house, subcontracted, and purchased components will be evaluated for its clarity and reasonableness. Finally, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s integrated approach to proactively controlling manufacturing processes to determine the likelihood of successfully minimizing variation and preventing defects.

Subfactor B – Management Plan.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Plan to assess the Offeror’s ability to manage the program and mitigate risks effectively. This evaluation will focus on the clarity and soundness of the described system management, business processes, and plans for controlling technical and schedule risk.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s approach to engineering, hardware, and resource management to determine if it can fully support the proposed production lead-time and monthly production rates. The credibility of the Offeror’s process to document and control manufacturing processes with respect to their impact on performance, safety, and storage life expectancy will also be evaluated. The Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) will be assessed for its level of detail, realism, and the soundness of the critical path. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s identified potential schedule risks and the credibility of the corresponding mitigation plans. Finally, the Government will assess the thoroughness and feasibility of the Offeror’s plan to comply with all United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations.

Subfactor C – Quality Plan.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Quality Plan to determine the extent to which the proposed Quality System will ensure the production of a high-quality TFD that conforms to all solicitation requirements. This evaluation will assess the comprehensiveness and rigor of the plans and procedures for inspection and testing of all assemblies, subassemblies, and parts, including the fixed time delays, 24-hour programming function, underwater capability, and the functionality of the LEEFI, Shock Tube Initiator, and training chip. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s processes for the detection, segregation, and handling of non-conforming material for their effectiveness in preventing such materials from being incorporated into the final product. The evaluation will also consider the Offeror’s process for flowing down quality requirements to subcontractors and the proposed methods for verifying subcontractor compliance. Finally, the Government will assess the Offeror’s approach to meeting the specified tolerances of the product’s Critical Characteristics, including the proposed use of statistical process control (SPC) and other quality control methodologies, to determine the likelihood of consistently producing a compliant product.

Adjectival Rating Description for Factor II (Subfactors A-C). The Government will assign an adjectival rating for Factor II in accordance with the below adjectival rating table. Subfactors will not be separately rated.

Section M Table 2: Adjectival Ratings for Factor II (Subfactors A-C)

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Factor III: Past Performance (VOLUME III)

The Government will evaluate the three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is the recency of the Offeror's past performance. Recent performance includes efforts performed within the past three calendar years from solicitation release date.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevant performance includes efforts that are of similar scope and complexity as identified in the requirements. Past performance references that reflect projects with a similar scope and complexity to efforts described in this solicitation will be considered to have greater importance in the evaluation of this factor. The Government will evaluate all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating.

The Government reserves its right to collect and use information from sources other than those identified in the proposal to evaluate past performance. This may include, but not limited to, Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, and/or personal knowledge. The Government may contact past or current customers to collect additional information for use in evaluating past performance.

The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and to contact other references than those provided in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to not perform a past performance evaluation on any Offeror that is assigned an “Unacceptable” adjectival rating under Factor II – Technical Approach.

Adjectival Rating Description. The Government will assign adjectival ratings for Factor III in accordance with the following information. For recency, each past performance reference will be assigned a rating of “Recent” or “Not Recent” as determined by whether the effort was performed within the past three calendar years from solicitation release date. For relevancy, each past performance reference will be assigned a rating in accordance with Table 4 below.

Section M Table 4: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Ratings 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 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 third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into a performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, an overall performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned as shown in Table 5 and is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will assign an overall performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 5 below.

Section M Table 5: Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival Ratings Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

While “Neutral Confidence” ratings will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, the Government may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

Factor IV: Price (VOLUME IV)

The Government will perform a TEP analysis of the proposed price. The Government will evaluate the proposed pricing based upon both an examination of the unit pricing proposed and the estimated delivery order quantities per year, multiplied by the offered price for that quantity range, all years summed, to arrive at a TEP.