DRFP Atch 3 Eval Criteria.pdf

ADDENDUM TO

52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

FOR

INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE SECURITY SYSTEMS IDIQ

(IBDSS)

IDIQ

DRAFT SOLICITATION NO. FA564120R0008

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW)

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. FAR 15.101 states that best value is obtained by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In this procurement, the

Government will select the best overall offers that, based upon the results of an integrated assessment of the proposals, offer the Government a combination of the Highest Technically Rated (HTR) Past

Experience ratings. The qualification criteria maximize the objectivity of determining the HTRO. The

Government finds that an individual Offeror with prior performance history in the qualification criteria listed in the Self-Scoring Matrix (Appendix D) presents a lower risk of unsuccessful performance.

Likewise, the Government finds that an individual Offeror with little prior performance history in the qualification criteria listed presents a higher risk of unsuccessful performance. Although this source selection includes an integrated assessment, the evaluation methodology is not a Tradeoff as the

Government will not evaluate Cost/Price.

1.1.1 Contracts may be awarded to the Offerors who are deemed qualified. In order to be considered qualified, the Government must determine (1) an Offeror to be responsible in accordance with FAR

9.104-1; (2) the Offeror’s proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation); and, (3) based on the evaluation factors, the Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government.

1.1.1.1 The top four (4) Offerors with the HTR Past Experience ratings will represent the best value to the

Government. However, in the event of an unbreakable tie for the highest top 4 ranked Offerors, the procedures in paragraph 3.3 of Section M will be used to determine the best value to the

Government.

1.1.2 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of all source selection evaluation criteria (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be awarded. For the purpose of establishing the Indefinite Delivery

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Pool, the Government contemplates awarding approximately 4 contracts.

The number of contracts awarded is within the sole discretion of the Government.

The Government reserves the right to exercise “on-ramps” as described in Section H of this solicitation to award additional contracts at any point within the ordering period, to include the seven-year ordering period option. In the event that the Government elects to exercise “on-ramps” the Government may exceed the number of contracts contemplated above.

1.3 IDIQ Ceiling. The overall ceiling of the IDIQ is estimated at $91M for seven (7) years. The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount. Funding will be determined at the individual task order level.

1.4 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order. Post-Award Conference will be awarded to each IDIQ awardee.

The task order for the Post-Award Conference is $2,500.00 and will satisfy the minimum order requirement. A Contractor that is awarded an IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any task order beyond the Post-Award Conference. The Cost/Price of the Post-Award Conference will not be evaluated.

1.5 Proposals Substantiation. Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past

Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated and the proposal would be unqualified and unawardable.

1.6 Discussions. The Governments intends to issue the award without discussions. The Government will not enter into discussions on Past Experience.

2.0 RESPONSIVENESS AND RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Responsiveness. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being non-responsive and ineligible for award.

The Government will review the proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the provided documentation to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of Contractor responsiveness.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal when making the determination of responsibility.

2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology. There will be no trade-offs between cost/price and other factors, and the Government is not seeking the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself on Factor 1: Past Experience based on the objective criteria described in RFP Atch 2.

The Government will rank Offerors’ proposals based on their combined initial self-scoring for Factors

1 and 2, sorting all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The

Government will validate the 6 highest proposed self-scores. If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted as a result of Government validation, and the Offeror is no longer among the top 4 highest rated Offerors, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror, until a total of 4

Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores remain. The Government will validate the top rated self-scores as described in Section 4.1 below. In case of a tie for the 4 highest positions, procedures in section 3.3 will be used.

3.2 Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factors a will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Past Experience

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(C)(i), Cost/Price will not be evaluated during this source selection; Cost/Price will be evaluated for each individual task order.

3.3 Ties and Tie-Breakers. After validation of the top 4 rated self-scores, the Government will view the proposed self-score of the next top rated Offeror. If the proposed self-score of the next top rated Offeror is tied with the fourth top rated Government-validated score, then the Government will validate the proposed self-score of the tied rated Offeror. This process will repeat until there are no more scores tied with the fourth score. In the event of a tie, the Government will utilize the following tie-breaker process(es).

3.3.1 First Tiebreaker. First, the Government will consider the total number of major electronic systems the Offeror has operated and maintained during the last five years. The Government will use the quantity identified by the Offeror in Section 2.4.2.6 of the ITO. One point will be received for each major electronic system. For tie-breaking purposes only, Offerors may receive points for all major electronic systems, including those beyond the quantity that would achieve the maximum points in

Section 2.4.2.6 of the ITO. The Government will select the Offeror with the highest total number of major electronic systems.

3.3.2 Second Tiebreaker. If a tie exists after the first tiebreaker, the Government will consider the total number of minor electronic systems the Offeror has operated and maintained during the last five years. The Government will use the quantity identified by the Offeror in Section 2.4.2.7 of the ITO.

One point will be received for each minor electronic system. For tie-breaking purposes only, Offerors may receive points for all minor electronic systems, including those beyond the quantity that would achieve the maximum points in Section 2.4.2.7 of the ITO. The Government will select the Offeror with the highest total number of minor electronic systems.

3.3.3 Final Tiebreaker. If a tie exists after the second tiebreaker, the Government will consider the total number of mobile missions the Offeror has executed during the last five years. The Government will use the quantity identified by the Offeror in Section 2.4.2.8 of the ITO. One point will be received for each mobile mission executed. For tie-breaking purposes only, Offerors may receive points for all mobile missions, including those beyond the quantity that would achieve the maximum points in

Section 2.4.2.8 of the ITO. The Government will select the Offeror with the highest total number of mobile missions executed.

3.3.4 Unbreakable Tie. If a tie exists after the second tie breaker, the Government reserves the right to exclude or retain each of the tied Offerors. The decision is to exclude or include both Offerors is the sole discretion of the Government.

4.0 Factor 1 – Past Experience.

4.1 Past Experience Evaluation. The Government will rank Offerors proposals’ based on initial self-scoring as set forth in 3.1 above, sorting all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will validate the 4 highest proposed self-scores. Offeror’s self-scores will be validated using the work samples provided. The Government will review the section of the work sample that is listed within the Cross Reference Matrix (Appendix E). If the substantiating information cannot be found within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc. the Government will not search further for the substantiating information. If the Offerors score cannot be validated based on the work samples and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the score, potentially all the way down to zero (0) points. The Government will ONLY adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, not upward. As stated in 1.6, the Government will not enter into discussions;

therefore, the Government will not hold discussions with the Offeror to communicate downward adjustments. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government. If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted, and the Offeror is no longer among the top 4 highest rated Offerors, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror, until a total of 4 Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores remain.