DRFP Atch 3 Eval Criteria v1.2..docx

ADDENDUM TO

52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

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 an acceptable Highest Technically Rated (HTR) Past Experience rating. 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 C) 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 To be determined Best Value, the Offerors will need to be deemed qualified. In order to be considered qualified, the Government must determine an Offeror to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1; the Offeror’s proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation); and meet or exceed the Past Experience Scoring Sheet threshold established in section 1.1.1.1.

1.1.1.1 For an Offeror’s Past Experience to be determined acceptable, the offeror must respond yes to the Pass/Fail Questions, and meet or exceed the following scores within each evaluation group of the scoring sheet:

1. Group I: 12,000 points (ITO Section 2.4.2.3)

2. Group II: 6,500 points (ITO Sections 2.4.2.4 and 2.4.2.5)

3. Group III: 6,500 points (ITO Sections 2.4.2.6 and 2.4.2.7)

The number of awardees won’t be limited. Any offeror meeting the qualified criteria in section 1.1.1, and Best Value criteria in this section will be eligible for contract award.

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 to any offeror meeting the best value criteria in section 1.1.1 and subsection 1.1.1.1. 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 delivery orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount. Funding will be determined at the individual delivery order level.

1.4 Minimum Guaranteed Delivery Order. Post-Award Conference will be awarded to each IDIQ awardee. The delivery 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 delivery 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 Government intends to award these IDIQ contracts without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to contact the Prime Offeror or any Team Members/Subcontractors to substantiate, understand, or clarify any of the evidence provided, in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2). These clarifications may be provided in the form of Evaluation Notices (ENs).

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 Technical Experience, based on the objective criteria described in Section L Instructions to Offerors.

The Government will rank Offerors’ proposals based on their combined initial self-scoring for Factor 1, sorting all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will validate all offerors meeting or exceeding the requirements in section 1.1.1 and subsection 1.1.1.1. Any offerors meeting or exceeding the criteria in section 1.1.1 and subsection 1.1.1.1 will represent the best value to the Government.

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

Factor 1: Past Technical 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 delivery order.

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 technically acceptable to being not technically acceptable. The Government will validate all proposed self-scores equal to or above the minimum points required in section 1.1.1.1. 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 D). 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. Any offeror meeting the minimum number of points will represent the best value for the Government and will be eligible for award.