Eval Criteria For Award AAS.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION: FA8203-25-R-0023

For purposes of award, offers will be evaluated based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). The Government intends to award one (1) contract to the LPTA offeror. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest to hold discussions, offeror responses to those notices will be considered in the evaluation.

Factor 1 - Price Price will be evaluated by adding the extended prices for basic award and option quantities (i.e. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)). An example of the extended prices evaluation is provided below for reference.

The CDRL and Travel/Material CLINs will not be included/considered in the TEP. The CDRLs (data) CLINs will be not separately priced (NSP) and the Travel & Material CLINs will be Cost Reimbursable – No Fee (CRNF). The CRNF Travel/Material CLINs will include a Not To Exceed CRNF amount based on a Government estimate.

CLIN DESCRIPTION PROPOSED CLIN AMOUNT

0001 Basic Award – A&AS Engineering Analysis $ 0002 Basic Award – Travel & Material $ Not Evaluated 0003 Basic Award – Data $ NSP – Not Evaluated 0004 Option 1 – A&AS Engineering Analysis $ 0005 Option 1 – Travel & Material $ Not Evaluated 0006 Option 1 – Data $ NSP – Not Evaluated 0007 Option 2 – A&AS Engineering Analysis $ 0008 Option 2 – Travel & Material $ Not Evaluated 0009 Option 2 – Data $ NSP – Not Evaluated

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE $

Factor 2 – Technical Acceptability The Technical Proposal should be clear, specific and complete. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the RFP (including the PWS). It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate (copy and paste, rephrase or restate) the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

Provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors.

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Any subfactor evaluated as “unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal clearly does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

(a) Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

Description:

The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate/describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy PWS requirements 3.0 – Scope / Contractor Tasking / Requirements thru 4.5 – Contractor Personnel Qualification. This shall include, at a minimum, an executive summary (general technical approach) and labor categories and labor hours (by basic, option year 1, and option year 2). This shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting the minimum requirements of PWS requirements 3.0 – Scope / Contractor Tasking / Requirements thru

4.5 – Contractor Personnel Qualification.

(b) Subfactor 2 - Compensation Plan (Professional Employees)

Description:

The offeror’s proposal demonstrate/describe their Compensation Plan for Professional Employees to satisfy FAR 22.10003-1, 22.1101 and 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, requirements. This shall include, at a minimum, an overview of employment classifications, compensation, and employee benefits.

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting FAR 22.10003-1, 22.1101 and 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, requirements by meeting the following minimum adequacy requirements:

(1) Plan demonstrates/describes a sound management approach, understanding of work to be performed and understanding of the contract requirements.

(2) Plan demonstrates/describes the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance.

(3) Plan demonstrates/describes their ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality service/support.

(4) Plan demonstrates/describes a compensation structure capable of obtaining and keeping (i.e.

properly and fairly compensated) suitably qualified personnel to fulfill the PWS requirements.

This includes proposed salaries and fringe benefits.

(c) Subfactor 3 – Property Management Plan (PMP)

The offeror’s proposal shall include their PMP (PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal & CDRL A/B/C0007). This PMP shall demonstrate/describe the voluntary consensus standards (VCSs) or industry-leading practices (ILPs) that they intend to follow regarding Government Furnished Property (GFP) FAR 45.201(c)(4).

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s PMP clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting the minimum requirements of PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal & CDRL A/B/C0007 and adequacy of FAR 45.201(c)(4) requirements. The PMP will be incorporated into the resulting contract upon award.

(d) Subfactor 4 - System Safety Program Plan (SSPP)

The offeror’s proposal shall include their SSPP (PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal, PWS Appendix C, and CDRL A/B/C0002). This SSPP shall demonstrate/describe their SSPP IAW PWS Appendix C requirements.

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s SSPP clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting the minimum requirements of PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal, PWS Appendix C, and CDRL A/B/C0002.

(e) Subfactor 5 - Quality Control Plan (QCP)

The offeror’s proposal shall include their QCP (PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal and CDRL A/B/C0003). This QCP shall demonstrate/describe the inspection system to ensure services are provided IAW the PWS. Procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. Key performance parameters shall be used to monitor work performance, measure results, ensure delivery of contracted product deliverables and solutions, support management and decision-making and facilitate communications. Identify risks, resolve problems and verify effectiveness of corrective actions. Institute and maintain a process that ensures problems and action items are tracked through resolution and shall provide timely status reporting.

Results of actions taken to improve performance shall be tracked and lessons learned incorporated into applicable processes. Establish and maintain a documented set of disciplined, mature and continuously improving processes for administering all contract efforts with an emphasis on schedule, performance, responsiveness and consistently high-quality delivery.

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s QCP clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting the minimum requirements of PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal, and CDRL A/B/C0003.