Evaluation and Basis for Award.pdf

Evaluation and Basis for Award(s)

EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD(S)

1. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

PPPL will evaluate Offerors’ proposals to: 1) ensure the proposal is responsive; 2) the proposal is complete and includes all the proposal contents as noted in Part II and in compliance with the administrative requirements; and 3) is a “responsible” prospective Subcontractor, as explained below:

A. RESPONSIVENESS. PPPL will determine the responsiveness of each proposal on a pass/fail basis. A proposal will be considered “responsive” if it is in compliance with all the requirements as outlined in the RFP. PPPL reserves the right to consider any proposal “unresponsive” and reject, in total or in part, with or without prior discussion with the Offeror, if the proposal (a) is not submitted in the format specified in the RFP or does not include all of the information requested by PPPL; (b) is not in accordance with the instructions contained in the RFP; or (c) contains irregularities of any kind. Proposals determined non-responsive will be eliminated from further consideration for award

B. OFFERORS TECHNICAL CAPABILITY. Offerors’ whose proposal is determined to be responsive will then be evaluated to determine if the Offeror possess the capabilities, qualifications, and experience needed as specified in Part III of the Instructions for Proposal Preparation (Section III of the RFP). An Offeror is deemed qualified if determined by PPPL to provide the desired capabilities and meet the minimum qualifications as outlined. Offerors who do not meet the minimum qualifications will be eliminated from further consideration for award.

C. PRICE. Price will be evaluated but not scored or rated. Price will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. Unreasonably high or unrealistically low or prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from consideration for award.

D. RESPONSIBILITY. PPPL will determine if an Offeror is a “responsible” prospective subcontractor, as the term is used in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart

9.1. Offerors determined not be to a “responsible” prospective subcontractor will not be eligible for award.

2. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Upon receipt of proposals, PPPL may contact Offerors with a request for clarification. Proposals will then be screened for responsiveness. Offerors whose proposal(s) were determined to be unresponsive will be eliminated from further consideration. Proposals determined to be responsive will be evaluated using the methodology described in this document.

PPPL intends to make an award without discussions with Offeror(s). Therefore, Offerors’ initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms. PPPL reserves the right to make multiple awards and reserves the right to bid out Job Orders amongst the awardees. PPPL reserves the right to conduct discussions, if subsequently PPPL determines it to be in the best interests of PPPL to do

so. If discussions are determined to be necessary, PPPL will establish a competitive range amongst the most highly-rated proposals (technical factors and price considered), and discussions with one or more Offerors included in the competitive range may be held to identify proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, as well as proposal areas that require clarification or elaboration.

3. BASIS FOR AWARD(S)

The basis of award for the subsequent Basic Ordering Agreement award, if any and at PPPL’s sole discretion, will be made to qualified and responsible Offeror submitting a proposal evaluated to offer the Best Value to PPPL. Although pricing is not being scored or rated, it will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable.

PPPL reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal is its sole discretion, in total or in part, with or without prior discussion with the Offeror.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA

The evaluation set forth in this section will be conducted based on the commitment of the Offeror(s) to abide by the details in the Statement of Work, “Audit Services: Pre-Award, Interim, Forward Pricing and Closeout” Risk Categorization: Exempt: Dated October 22,2024 and adherence to “Instructions for Proposal Preparation”.

EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA WEIGHT

Responsiveness-Acceptability Factor pass/fail (not weighted)

a. Actively engaged in the provision of internal audit services for Governmental clients (Sub-factor)

____ Yes ____No

b. Must clearly demonstrate the capability to meet all specified requirements (Sub-factor)

____ Yes ____No

c. Must complete the Proposal Form contained in the RFP in its entirety (including all signatures) (Sub-factor)

____ Yes ____No

d. Must submit completed PPPL required documentation, and must affirm its willingness to comply with all requirements of the Privacy Act and all other applicable statutory and regulatory controls for safeguarding and management of personal information that may come into its possession in the course of subcontract performance

____ Yes ____No

OFFERORS TECHNICAL CAPABILITY 100 total points -weighted

PAST EXPERIENCE 25

EVIDENCE OF MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS 20

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY 30

OFFEROR’S TEAM 25

Description

Exceptional Offeror’s capabilities exceed all requirements and the excess capability would be beneficial to PPPL. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Acceptable Offeror is capable of satisfying all stated requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are minor and easily correctable.

Fair Offeror is capable of satisfying some stated requirements.

Any weaknesses or deficiencies are not easily correctable.

The point scores will be tallied for all criteria under each of the subfactors and a final tally will be made to determine the overall rating for the Offeror Technical Capability Factor.

Points will be converted to adjectival ratings based on the following conversion table:

Exceptional Acceptable Fair

PAST EXPERIENCE/CUSTOMER REFERENCES

25 points 15 points 5 points

EVIDENCE OF MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS 20 points 12 points 6 points

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY 30 points 18 points 8 points

OFFEROR’S TEAM 25 points 15 points 5 points