Evaluation Factors.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors for Award

a. Basis for Contract Award.

(a) This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer.

(b) Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted.

Unreasonably high, unrealistically low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals, may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques stated in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

The Government reserves the right to eliminate proposals that are considered to be too low by performing a Price Realism Analysis.

b. Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Price Schedule will be considered ineligible for award. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

c. Evaluation Criteria

(1) Evaluation criteria consists of factors. The proposals will be evaluated under three (3) evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

(2) Factor 1 – Technical Capability Factor. The Technical Capability Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. In order to meet this factor requirement, the offeror must demonstrate the experience in performing contracts of similar scope and complexity. In evaluating an offeror’s proposal, the Government will assess the similarity of the scope and complexity of offeror’s previous experience to the scope and complexity of this requirement.

The Technical Capability Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below.

Table A-1. Technical Capability Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

In order to receive an acceptable rating, the Technical Capability submissions must:

(a) Provide at least one (1) Experience, submitted using the Specific Relevant Contract Sheet (Attachment #3), which show projects demonstrating experience restoring stone masonry on historic structures which include the full range of possible tasks described in the statement of work under this section; and

(b) Provide at least one (1) Experience, submitted using the Experience Overview Sheet, which show projects demonstrating experience with PPC walkway work including the full range of possible tasks described in the performance work statement of work under this section.

(3) Factor 2 - Past Performance. Past Performance is evaluated as a performance risk assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

- Quality of Service/Technical Performance

- Program Management

- Customer Satisfaction

- Employee Retention/Attraction

(a) Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Contract requirements.

(b) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(c) Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the effort being procured under this solicitation.

Recent past performance is defined as not more than six (6) years from the RFP release date; relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size and complexity.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. 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. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

(d) The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

(e) Assigning Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the ratings defined below.

In order to receive an acceptable rating, the Past Performance submissions must also:

(a) Show successful completion of restoring stone masonry on historic buildings; and

(b) Show successful completion of Portland cement concrete walkway work.

(f) Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(4) Factor 3 – Price. Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b).

Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices. Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced. The Government reserves the right to eliminate proposals that are considered to be too low by performing a Price Realism Analysis.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of price evaluation, the government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option. Offerors are not required to enter a price for the six-month period.

Definitions.

Reasonableness. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Completeness. The offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation.”

EVALUATION FACTORS