Evaluation Criteria L and M CSC-26502.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

The offeror’s quote must be submitted in two parts: a technical quote and a price quote. Each of the parts shall be separate and complete so that evaluation of each may be accomplished independently.

1 GENERAL INFORMATION

The Offeror is required to submit sufficient information concerning the following areas to enable Government personnel to fully ascertain the capabilities of the Offeror to perform the requirements. The quote must be sufficient in detail and scope to permit evaluation and provide the evaluators a clear understanding of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the defined elements as required by the solicitation. All quotes must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements and associated risks, the Offeror is able, willing, and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet the requirements and has valid and practical solutions for all requirements and potential risk areas. The Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with all the evaluation factors identified in this solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the

Government may incorporate into the final contract any portions of the Offeror’s quote deemed beneficial to the Government. With the exception of Evaluation Factor: Price, no price or pricing information should appear in any section of the quote. Alternate quotes are not acceptable.

In presenting material in the quote, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization should be emphasized during quote preparation.

The Offeror is responsible for presenting enough information to allow the Government to evaluate the proposed work effort, support, and approach, and the price quote without opening discussions. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, or can and/or will comply with, the specifications, and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the Government and may result in a rating of unacceptable.

The Offeror must include any data that illustrates the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to address a specific factor clearly may be considered a deficiency.

Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective quote is neither necessary nor desired.

The Offeror is expected to comply with all requirements of the solicitation. The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the solicitation may make an offer unacceptable, and the quote un-awardable, unless the solicitation expressly authorizes such an exception or deviation with regard to that specific term or condition. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the solicitation that is not expressly authorized by the solicitation to be a deficiency.

1.1 QUESTIONS

Offerors may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by emailing the Contract Specialist Jacob.mcgee@dla.mil & CC the Contracting Officer Mitchell.hatfield@dla.mil. NO

PHONE CALLS WILL BE ACCEPTED.

1.1.1 Question Format

List of questions are required to be on MS Excel spreadsheet in format below including document name, page number, paragraph or section number, context, and question or comment.

SAMPLE:

Document Name Page # Paragraph, Section # or Context Question/Comment RFQ (1449) 7 Paragraph 6 or last paragraph: Contract

Maximum Dollar Value Typo

1.1.2 Open Question Period

It is requested that all contract/administrative and all technical related questions be received within 14 days after the solicitation open date.

1.1.3 Responses

Responses to the questions will be provided to all of the Offerors at least 7 days prior to solicitation close date.

2 QUOTE SUMBMISSION

The submission date for all volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in the solicitation.

Please refer to paragraph 2.6.5 for the quote content and structure requirements.

2.1 Electronic Submission Only

The Offeror shall use electronic means (Email) of sending the quote. No mailed copies required. The electronic documents should be clearly marked with the solicitation number and appropriate volume number.

If any documents submitted are considered Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), they must be provided in a secure manner in compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012.

2.2 Late Submissions

Quotes submitted after the closing date and time specified for receipt of offers are “late” and will not be considered for award. The Government will process late submissions of quotes in accordance with FAR

52.212-1. If the electronic quote is received late; it is not eligible for consideration in accordance with FAR 52.212-1, the Government will reject that quote without evaluation.

2.3 Quote Submission Information

Solicitation No: SP4702-26-Q-0012

Opening / Closing Date and Time: May 13, 2026/ June 15, 2026

NOTE: Quotes will be accepted any time before the closing date.

The Offeror shall submit one (1) electronic copy of the quote as shown in paragraph 2.6.5 and must be emailed to CS Jacob.mcgee@dla.mil & CC the KO Mitchell.hatfield@dla.mil no later than the solicitation close date.

2.4 Classified Data

All quotes must be UNCLASSIFIED.

2.5 Document Requirement

The quote shall be delivered to the email addresses provided prior to the closing date/time stated in this solicitation. There shall be no reference to pricing in the non-Price potion of the quote or in the cover letter or executive summary.

The Offeror shall mark each page of its quote with the legend “Source Selection Information – See FAR

2.101 and 3.104.” This includes the cover page and EVERY page that may contain source selection information. Note that the Offeror has an independent requirement to mark anything deemed to be bid or quote information, protected proprietary information, or other information that is to be protected from disclosure to ensure that the information is protected.

2.6 Quote Content

2.6.1 Cover Page

Each quote shall contain the following items in addition to the non-price and price quote data required by the solicitation.

The cover should indicate the following:

Company Name Quote Title Solicitation Number

Offeror Name and Address Principal Point of Contact Name and Phone Number CAGE / Unique Entity ID (UEI) mailto:Jacob.mcgee@dla.mil mailto:Mitchell.hatfield@dla.mil

2.6.2 Table of Contents

The table of contents shall provide sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located.

2.6.3 Cover Letter and Executive Summary

The cover letter should be on company letterhead and must contain a statement committing the Offeror to the quote and stating its validity for a period of at least 90 days. This letter should also include the name, title, phone number, and e-mail address for the persons authorized to negotiate with the Government in connection with the solicitation. The letter must be signed by a responsible officer or partner/principal of the Offeror who is authorized to bind the firm contractually. The letter must also contain a statement that the quote meets the specifications of each section of the solicitation. An Executive Summary of the Offeror’s entire quote is required. This summary will not be evaluated but will be used to gain an understanding of the overall quote contents. It should identify and highlight significant features of the quote and include the salient points contained in the various sections of the solicitation. The Executive Summary shall not include any price-related information.

The following format should be followed in developing the summary:

a) General Information (see Note 1)

b) An overview of Technical Capability

c) Solicitation Qualifications/Deviations (see Note 2)

Note 1: The General Information section of the Executive Summary should include the following information:

a) Company name and address

b) Company Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)

c) Unique Entity Identification (UEI)

d) CAGE code

e) The name, phone number, and e-mail address for the authorized company negotiator relative to the quote

Note 2: Solicitation exceptions and deviations are quotes that differ from the requirements contained in the Request for Quote, Task Order PWS, and resultant contract terms and conditions. Exceptions, deviations, qualifications (also known as ground rules and assumptions), or requests to tailor a term may cause quotes to be considered non-responsive and unacceptable. Offerors must address such exceptions, deviations, qualifications (also known as ground rules and assumptions), or requests to tailor a term in the Cover Letter and provide a detailed description of any form of exception, deviation, qualification, or request to tailor and indicate the firm’s difficulty with the applicable requirement in addition to the firm’s proposed approach. Exceptions, deviations, qualifications (also known as ground rules and assumptions), or requests to tailor a term that appear in the quote, but are not identified in the Cover Letter, will be ignored and will not be included in any resultant award. Exceptions, deviations, qualifications (also known as ground rules and assumptions), or requests to tailor a term will be addressed during discussions, but note the Government reserves the right to award without discussion and bids with exception will render quotes un-awardable.

2.6.4 Additional Information and Solicitation Amendments (if Applicable)

If you need information to complete your quote and it was not contained in the Solicitation, attachments, or other data provided by the Government, you must request this information during the open question period of this solicitation. If any amendments are issued to the solicitation, quotes shall include an acknowledgment of the amendments.

2.6.5 Quote Evaluation Factors

Evaluation factors are listed as follows:

FACTOR A: TECHNICAL QUOTE

FACTOR B: PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

FACTOR C: EXPERIENCE

FACTOR D: PRICE

2.6.6 Quote Structure

Quotes submitted shall contain separate documents for each factor, as outlined in the quotes table of contents. Each individual factor document shall be complete in its response to the requested information.

Information provided in one factor response will not be considered in a differing factor response.

List of factor requirements are as follows:

Document Deliverable(s) Copies Format INTRODUCTION Signed Cover Letter, Table of Contents and

Executive Summary

1 PDF

FACTOR A:

TECHNICAL

QUOTE

Project Execution Plan

• The plan shall describe the

Contractor’s methodology of compliance with the Deliverables and Performance Requirements Summary outlined in the PWS.

Project Management Plan

• Submit a management plan that briefly explains how the team is organized to respond to the needs described for the PWS. Management structure proposed shall clearly describe systems, procedures, techniques, and

1 PDF

tracking systems that will support management of the contract.

FACTOR B:

PROJECT

ORGANIZATION

AND STAFFING

Project Organization and Staffing Plan

• Submit a Project Organization and Staffing Plan that briefly explains how the contract will be organized and staffed to perform task requirements, safety requirements and quality control requirements as described in the PWS.

The plan shall describe the required qualified personnel with the necessary management expertise, training, and certifications to assure the performance of the work in accordance with sound and efficient management practices.

• Provide an organizational chart/table specifying, job classifications, roles, responsibilities, and communication networks proposed for execution of the required tasks for this PWS.

Key Personnel: Project Manager

• Provide written qualification statement for the individual who will be functioning as the project manager, demonstrating 5 years of project management experience for projects similar in nature to work described in the statement of work.

FACTOR C:

EXPERIENCE

Experience Statement

• Provide an experience statement that lists categories of work that your organization normally performs with its own forces. Identify qualities, accreditations, services, skills, or personnel that you believe differentiate your organization from offerors.

• List jurisdictions and trade categories in which your organization is legally qualified to do business, and indicate registration or license numbers, if applicable. Contractor must include a copy of the firm’s Electrician License.

• List projects/contracts your organization currently has in progress giving the name of project, owner, architect, contract amount, date of completion and percentage of the cost of the work performed with your own forces.

• List up to 5 projects similar in nature of this PWS that your organization has completed in the past five years, giving the name of project, owner, architect, contract amount, date of completion and percentage of the cost of the work performed with your own forces.

FACTOR D:

PRICE

• The price quote will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness for the work to be performed.

1 PDF/EXCEL

3 EVAULATION FACTORS

3.1 FACTOR A: TECHNICAL QUOTE

Offerors are required to submit a comprehensive and complete technical quote that demonstrates their ability to perform the work as described in this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned to be responsive to all of the requirements of the PWS and provide sufficient information to allow evaluation of the quotes per Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award). The technical quote must be succinct, well written and presented in a clear straightforward manner.

3.1.1 Project Management Plan

The Offeror shall provide in narrative form a Management Plan that describes management techniques and controls that will be implemented to manage and control the requirements of the PWS. Management structure proposed shall clearly describe systems, procedures, techniques, and tracking systems that will support management of the contract. Describe the Offeror’s present workload and the availability of contractor personnel (including subcontracts) for the specified contract performance period and the ability of the contractor to provide qualified backup staffing for key personnel to ensure continuity of services.

The Offeror should include the following information:

a. Provide a high-level summary of the systems and facilities covered in the PWS.

b. Describe the Offeror’s ability to manage, coordinate and work effectively with team members, both internal staff and subcontractors. Discuss the history of working relationships with team members, including joint venture partners and how allocating responsibility between joint venture members will be managed, where applicable.

c. Provide a list of subcontractors and key stakeholders, and their responsibilities. Describe your plan for managing subcontractors during contract performance.

d. Describe plan for establishing and performing preventative maintenance (PM) procedures on electrical, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, kitchen and mechanical equipment. Detail the methods and frequency for preventative maintenance requirements.

e. Describe workflow for how demand maintenance orders (DMOs) will be handled—from initial service request and work order generation in EBS to execution, testing, and closeout.

f. A narrative explanation of how the Offeror intends to perform multiple simultaneous Project

Work Order requirements.

g. A narrative explanation of how the Offeror intends to assure safe performance. Offerors should describe the safety approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain safe working environments.

h. The narrative shall include an understanding of the various efforts, permits, codes and disciplines required to execute the requirements of the PWS. The plan shall list any special tools or test equipment that will be required.

i. A narrative explanation of how the Offeror intends to assure quality control. Offerors should describe the quality control approach, corporate systems, and capabilities to maintain quality control. After contract award, the selected Offeror will submit its Quality Control Plan for Government Approval.

3.2 FACTOR B: PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

3.2.1 Organization and Staffing Plan

The plan must include the following elements:

a. Provide an organizational chart for this project showing home office support, on-site management, and the chain of command. Joint Venture (JV) offerors must show the respective areas of responsibility for each partner. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel on the organizational chart and the number of FTE’s proposed.

b. The Offeror shall provide resumes of proposed key personnel and sufficient documentation of the certifications, licenses, and specific experience based on personnel qualification stated in the Task Order PWS. The key personnel must not be removed or replaced within the performance of this contract unless the following measures are taken and fully documented in writing and approved by the KO.

i. Project Manager (TO Paragraph C5.8.2)

ii. Site Maintenance Manager (TO Paragraph C5.8.3)

iii. Cyber Systems Administrator (TO Paragraph C5.8.4)

3.3 FACTOR C: EXPERIENCE

Provide an experience statement that lists categories of work that your organization normally performs with its own forces. Identify qualities, accreditations, services, skills, or personnel that you believe differentiate your organization from offerors.

List jurisdictions and trade categories in which your organization is legally qualified to do business, and indicate registration or license numbers, if applicable.

List projects/contracts your organization currently has in progress giving the name of project, owner, architect, contract amount, date of completion and percentage of the cost of the work performed with your own forces.

List up to 5 projects similar in nature of this PWS that your organization has completed in the past five years, giving the name of project, owner, architect, contract amount, date of completion and percentage of the cost of the work performed with your own forces.

Similar efforts shall include most of or all the following requirements:

a. Building/Facility MEP operations and maintenance contracts (500,000 square feet or more) under NAICS codes 238220 - Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors, 238210 - Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors, or 561210 – Facilities Support Services.

b. Contract award of $750,000 or more

3.4 FACTOR C: OFFER/PRICE

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) quote shall be submitted in a separate file/document in accordance with the base contract for the base and option years for the required tasks identified in the PWS using the provided price bid sheets excel file. The price quote will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness for the work to be performed. The price quote shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow the Government to verify the pricing to be fair and reasonable. The Contractor is urged to detail the technical approach being proposed with options that would increase reliability.

3.4.1 Base and option years shall be priced separately with technical narratives. The Contractor shall provide itemized equipment and labor costs of all work to be performed in this PWS.

3.4.2 The offeror shall ensure that a complete breakdown of costs is provided by major subcontractors.

Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 BASIS FOR AWARD:

1.1 This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.103-1, Tradeoff approach, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). Award will be made based on the best overall quote that is determined to provide the greatest assessed value to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: (A) Technical Quote, (B) Project Organization and Staffing, (C) Experience and (D) Price.

1.2 The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) quote that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical Quote, Project Organization and Staffing, Experience and Price. The Technical Quote factor is more important than the Project Organization and Staffing factor, which is more important than the Experience Factor which is more important than the Price Factor.

However, as the difference between ratings diminish the relative importance of the price increases.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Quote Factor and Project Organization and Staffing Factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. NOTE: THE TECHNICAL QUOTE, PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING, and EXPERICENCE FACTORS, WHEN COMBINED, ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

1.3 All offerors will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria identified in Section M “Evaluation

Approach” below. This is necessary in order to provide the best possible solution for the Government. To be eligible for award, offerors must have submitted a fully responsive quote and be selected based upon the evaluation criteria and the terms and conditions of this Solicitation.

2 FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each quote. Award will be made to the offeror whose quote provides the greatest assessed value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors. The evaluation factors are:

a) TECHNICAL QUOTE

b) PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

c) EXPERIENCE

d) PRICE

The offeror will be required to submit complete and accurate information as requested within Section L – Instruction to Offerors.

2.1 FACTOR A: TECHNICAL QUOTE

The purpose of the Technical Quote Factor is to assess whether the offeror’s quote will satisfy the Government’s minimum technical requirements. The evaluation team will evaluate the offeror’s quote against the minimum requirements established by the PWS to determine whether the quote is acceptable or unacceptable.

2.2 FACTOR B: PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

The purpose of the Project Organization and Staffing Factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposed project organization and staffing will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The evaluation team will evaluate the offeror’s quote against the minimum requirements established by the PWS to determine whether the quote is acceptable or unacceptable.

2.3 FACTOR C: EXPERIENCE

The purpose of the Experience Factor is to assess whether the offeror has the necessary experience to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The evaluation team will evaluate the offeror’s quote against the minimum requirements established by the PWS to determine whether the quote is acceptable or unacceptable.

2.4 FACTOR D: PRICE

The purpose of the Cost factor is to determine the offeror’s pricing is fair and reasonable and the offeror has a sound understanding of the PWS requirements.

3 EVALUATION APPROACH

All quotes shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Board (SSB).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a) Adequacy of Response. The quote will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFQ. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the quote in accordance with the quote submission section of the RFQ.

b) Feasibility of Approach. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the results achievable. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

3.1 FACTORS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will conduct a structured evaluation that examines an offeror’s ability to understand and perform the Government’s requirement; there are four (4) Evaluation factors: (A) TECHNICAL QUOTE;(B) PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING; (C) EXPERIENCE; and (C) PRICE. Evaluation of the offeror’s quote shall address each factor as it applies to the PWS. All Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price proposed or the highest technically rated quote due to the tradeoff determination. At the Source Selection Authority’s discretion, award may be made to a technically superior quote that is higher-rated and higher-priced. The Technical Quote Factor is of paramount importance and is more important than the Project Organization and Staffing factor, which is more important than the Experience factor, which is more important than the Price factor.

However, as the difference between ratings diminish the relative importance of the price increases.

At the Source Selection Authority’s discretion, a competitive range may be established comprised of all of the most highly rated quotes based on the evaluation criteria, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.204-1(b). The final award determination will be based on the greatest assessed value to the Government. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each quote.

3.2 EVALUATION FACTOR A: TECHNICAL QUOTE

3.2.1 Project Management Plan

The Government will review this plan and it will be evaluated using the three (3) following elements which are of equal importance:

a. Clarity: The technical quote is easy to read and understand. The descriptions of operation and maintenance methodologies, maintenance tasks, and response procedures are straightforward and free from ambiguity.

b. Completeness and Accuracy: The plan demonstrates a strong understanding of the PWS requirements for all MEP systems. It provides a comprehensive and accurate description of the offeror's approach to Preventative Maintenance and Demand Maintenance work orders. The plan provides a comprehensive list of subcontractors and key stakeholders, accurately describes their responsibilities, and details a clear plan for managing them.

c. Soundness of Plan: The proposed technical approach describes accepted industry best practices, methodologies, and solutions that are appropriate for this type of work. The processes and procedures indicate a strong grasp of the overall PWS technical requirements and present a reasonable, effective, and feasible strategy for successful execution.

3.2.2 Technical Quote Factor Rating

The Technical Factor Rating will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable. The Technical Quote Factor Ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's quote. The color rating depicts how the offeror’s quote meets the Technical Quote requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Quote indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Quote indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

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

Red Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Quote is unawardable.

3.3 EVALUATION FACTOR B: PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

Qualifications of proposed project organization and staffing will be evaluated to determine if the appropriate organizational structure, technical training, certifications and staffing experience to meet the technical requirements of a project of this nature. If any of the submitted individuals will perform more than one of the listed functions, this is acceptable as long as the submitted documentation identifies any and all functions the given individual will be performing.

The Government will review the Project Organization and Staffing plan and it will be evaluated using the three

(3) following elements which are of equal importance:

a. Clarity: The staffing plan is easy to read, understand, and the organizational chart, roles, and chain of command are straightforward and free from ambiguity.

b. Completeness and Accuracy: The plan demonstrates a strong understanding of the staffing requirements outlined in the Task Order PWS. It provides a comprehensive organizational chart that accurately delineates off-site office support, on-site management, and the number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) proposed for both on-site and off-site personnel. The plan provides all required resumes and sufficient documentation for the specified Key Personnel, demonstrating that their certifications, licenses, and experience are consistent with the qualifications stated in the PWS.

c. Soundness of Plan: The proposed plan is logical and appropriate for the work required, ensuring effective command and control. The staffing plan presents a reasonable and effective strategy for deploying qualified personnel to ensure all contract requirements are met, and it provides confidence that the proposed team has the necessary expertise for successful execution

3.3.1 Project Organization and Staffing Rating

The Project Organization and Staffing Rating Factor Rating will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable. The Project Organization and Staffing Rating Ratings focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's quote. The color rating depicts how the offeror’s quote meets the

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Quote indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Quote indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

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

Red Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Quote is unawardable.

3.4 EVALUATION FACTOR C: EXPERIENCE

The Experience evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The experience evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.202(c)(3)(ii), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These shall be combined to establish a performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

3.4.1 Experience Rating

The Experience Evaluation Team will review all experience information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s experience, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The experience rating, using the confidence assessment rating (Table 3), is based on the offeror’s overall record experience, and quality of experience.

TABLE 3 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s experience, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s experience record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No experience 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 experience.

Limited Confidence Based on the experience record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s experience record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3.5 EVALUATION FACTOR D: PRICE

A price analysis will be conducted to determine the total evaluated price is reasonable and complete. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposed rates are determined to be unreasonable or unrealistic. The Government will evaluate the price reasonableness for this effort on the basis of the competitive offers received in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

4 DEFINITIONS

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. See FAR 2.101.

Clarifications are exchanges between the Government and offerors where offerors are given the opportunity to resolve minor or clerical errors or clarify certain aspects of their quote. Clarifications can be used to enhance the Government’s understanding of a quote, allow reasonable interpretation of a quote, or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process.

(ii) Clarifications include, but are not limited to, addressing: ambiguities of the quote; other concerns such as perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes; the relevance of an offeror's past performance information; and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

(iii) Clarifications do not permit offerors to revise their quote and cannot be used to cure quote deficiencies or material omissions or materially alter the technical or cost elements of the quote.

However, contracting officers may request additional information or documentation provided the cost/price or other material elements of the quote are unchanged.

(iv) Clarifications may occur, at the contracting officer’s discretion, at any time after receipt of quotes through contract award. Contracting officers are not required to conduct clarifications with an offeror. If the contracting officer conducts clarifications with one or more offerors, it is not required to conduct clarifications with any other offeror. See FAR 15.202(a)(2).

Competitive Range is the group of evaluated quotes that the contracting officer determines are best suited for further negotiation. Contracting officers must establish a competitive range if negotiations will occur after evaluating competitive quotes. See FAR 15.204-1(a).

Deficiency is any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFQ. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFQ requires to be met at the time of quote submission. See FAR 15.001.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon experience information.

Quality is the composite of materiel attributes including performance features and characteristics of a production or service to satisfy a customer's given need.

Rating. The adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators’ to the Non-Price Factors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the quote, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/ teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Requirements Documents are all aspects of the RFQ that convey the needs of the Government to offerors, including the SOO, SOW, PWS, technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

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 may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased price or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased price may be removed from the risk definition.)

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s quote 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 quote is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of individuals representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition that is responsible for evaluating quotes against the solicitation criteria.

Source Selection Information is information prepared for use by an agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or quote to enter into an agency procurement contract if the information was not previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly. See FAR 2.101 for a listing of source selection information.

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

Subjective Tradeoff is a source selection process used when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror but it is not possible to place a quantifiable value on proposed performance or capabilities above threshold (minimum) requirements (see paragraph 1.3.1.3).

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-price/price factor quote for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the quote indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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

FAR 15.001.

3.5 EVALUATION FACTOR D: PRICE

4 DEFINITIONS