Evaluation Criteria - OCS Tutors Revised.pdf

Attachment 2 – Evaluation Criteria

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 This is a performance-price tradeoff award selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/.

1.2 The Government intends to award a single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) and will select the proposal found to be most advantageous to the Government considering, technical approach and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price in accordance with FAR 15.304, the relative importance of all other evaluation factors, when combined compared to price. The evaluation criteria are divided into three (3) factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The tradeoff process for this acquisition will permit a tradeoff between past performance and price for technically acceptable proposals in reaching the contract award decision. The Contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Attachment 1 – Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Government reasonably determines that performance of the technically acceptable higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The Government will base the award decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 This contract is a small business set-aside procurement. The Government intends to award one (1) indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract as well as task order 0001.

However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a single award Firm Fixed Price (FFP) IDIQ contract, with a travel CLIN. The Government will review the proposals for compliance. If a proposal is non-compliant then it will not be further evaluated.

2.0 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.1 The Government intends to award without interchanges. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. The Government will not search for information within the proposal in order to make the proposal acceptable. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold interchanges, a notice will be sent to the offeror.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

2.1.1 If interchanges are necessary, the Government will issue Interchange Notices (INs) as necessary to offerors. INs will be sent electronically to offerors to ensure complete understanding of any discrepancies. Any necessary page changes to the offeror’s proposals will be obtained prior to concluding interchanges. Throughout the interchange process, the Government will document any changes in ratings and total evaluated price.

Offeror responses to INs and the Proposal Revision Opportunity (PRO) at the conclusions of exchanges will be considered in making the award decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time interchanges are closed, any changes or exceptions in the PRO are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.1.2 Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

3.0 Evaluation Factors

3.1 The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

3.1.1 Factor I: Technical

Methodology and Approach to Complete PWS Tasks

3.1.2 Factor II: Past Performance

3.1.3 Factor III: Price

3.2 Factor I: Technical

The Government will rate the IDIQ technical proposal and assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.””

Table 1

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Methodology and Approach to Complete PWS Tasks at the IDIQ level Offerors shall explain its understanding, approach, and methodology to complete the required tasks IAW the PWS.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach/methodology, understanding of the requirement and associated processes to complete all required tasks IAW PWS requirements.

3.3 Factor II: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments based on the recency, relevancy, and quality assessment ratings per the criteria below.

3.3.1 The Government will review up to five (5), minimum of two (2), total contracts for past performance submitted by the Offeror. Any submission in excess of the limit will not be considered and only the first five (5) contracts listed in Volume II will be evaluated.

3.3.2 The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirement. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.

3.3.3 In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

3.3.4 Recency Assessment

Recency assessment will apply to all contracts evaluated. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. In order to be recent, the contract (or subcontract) must have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and for a minimum of a six (6) month period. Past Performance outside this given timeframe will not be evaluated. If performance on the contract occurred within the last five (5) years prior to the RFP's proposal submission deadline, the past performance record will receive a rating of "Recent," otherwise, the past performance record will receive a rating of "Not Recent," and will not receive further evaluation.

Table 2

Rating Definition VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.3.5 Performance Quality Assessment

Each submission will receive a quality assessment rating based on Table 3. A quality assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine the quality of the performance for each of the references. Each submission will receiving an individual rating.

Table 3 Rating Description Acceptable During the contract period, the contractor’s performance is meeting

(or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor provided immediate and effective correction action.

Unacceptable During the contract period, the contractor’s performance is failing (or failed) to meet contract requirements. Serious problems encountered and required corrective actions, were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was (or is) required.

3.3.6 Performance Confidence Assessment

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality ratings in all three performance categories, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

The performance confidence assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following performance confidence ratings, shown in Table 7, when assessing recent, relevant efforts

Table 4

Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent, relevant, or quality performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

3.4 Factor III: Price

3.4.1 The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the proposed prices in the IDIQ Pricing Table being fair and reasonable pricing. Price will also be evaluated for the total proposed price for Task Order 1 to ensure consistency with the IDIQ. The Government reserves the right to eliminate a proposal from further evaluation due to evaluated prices that are unfair or unreasonable.

3.4.2 IDIQ Level:

3.4.2.1 IDIQ Pricing Table will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The IDIQ Pricing Table will be incorporated into the contract and utilized for pricing for future task orders.

Reasonableness: Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures found in FAR 15.404-1, if deemed necessary and reasonable, may be used to ensure a fair, reasonable, and balanced price.

3.4.3 Task Order Level:

3.4.3.1 Task Order Request Form will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The total evaluated price (TEP) will consist of the sum of the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) tasks plus Travel for each of the Task Orders (Estimated Travel cost is provided in the pricing worksheets).

4. Award The Government shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with the established criteria in this Evaluation Criteria.

3.0 Evaluation Factors