Evaluation Factors_Revised 26 Apr 22.pdf

FA8601-22-R-0020

Addendum 2

EVALUATION FACTORS

26 April 2022

1. The Government will use procedures described in FAR 12.602, Streamlined Evaluation of

Offers, as well as FAR 13, Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Products and

Commercial Services, to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The

Government will award to the offeror with the lowest total evaluated price (TEP) among those that are found technically acceptable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon the quality of offers received and whether proposed prices are determined to be fair and reasonable. The factors that will be used to evaluate proposals are as follows and as expounded below: Technical Acceptability and Price. Past performance/prior experience will not be evaluated since the Small Business Administration (SBA) will put forth 8(a) small businesses that have the capability of meeting the needs of the Government.

(a) The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror that submits a proposal that 1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; 2) receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical

Acceptability evaluation factor; and 3) submits the proposal with the lowest TEP, provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is determined to be fair and reasonable.

(b) Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

(c) The Government will initiate concurrent Technical Acceptability evaluations on all proposals. Throughout the evaluation of Technical Acceptability, the Government will consider "correction potential" of a proposal, including whether any proposal deficiencies may be rectified. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's technical requirements in full and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

(d) During the evaluation period for Technical Acceptability, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation

Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as ‘Acceptable’ at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined

‘Unacceptable’ and ineligible for award.

(e) The contract may be awarded to the offeror:

(i) That is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, Responsible

Prospective Contractors, as supplemented;

(ii) That has submitted a proposal that conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Additional Instructions to Offerors (ITO), Addendum

1, of this solicitation); AND

(iii)That has been determined, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the proposal with the lowest TEP. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective.

Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(f) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed, e-mailed, or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the timeframe for acceptance specified in the proposal, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the proposal's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer regardless if there are negotiations after that offer’s receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR I - Technical Acceptability: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described in the table below for each sub-factor. Any sub-factor evaluated as ‘Unacceptable’ will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, offerors are cautioned that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Transition Planning

Description: This sub-factor will assess the offeror’s Transition Plan, to include staffing, management, equipment, supplies, and security considerations.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is met when the offeror’s proposed Transition

Plan demonstrates a sound approach for transitioning the services from the incumbent contract to the ensuing contractor, while maintaining continuity of all contracted services throughout the Transition Period.

Sub-factor 2: Staffing Approach

Description: This sub-factor will assess the offeror’s overall approach to manning each functional area of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is met when:

a) The offeror’s organizational chart reflects a sound manning approach to properly staff, manage, and maintain all the PWS requirements, and the organization chart demonstrates a complete understanding of each functional area of the PWS.

b) The narrative demonstrates a complete understanding of the positions, training qualifications, and contractor provided equipment, supplies, materials, etc., necessary to execute each functional area of the PWS.

Sub-factor 3: Continuation of Essential Contractor Services

Description: This sub-factor will evaluate the offeror’s proposed plan to meet the

Continuation of Essential Contractor Services during periods of crisis or contingencies.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is met when the offeror’s proposed

Continuation of Essential Contractor Services Plan demonstrates a sound approach for performing those services identified as essential contractor services during crisis/contingency situations.

FACTOR II - Price: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unbalanced, or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with:

a) FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items; and

b) Addendum 1 - Additional Instructions to Offerors.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether it is unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINs) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Reasonableness: Although this acquisition/Synopsitation is issued in accordance with FAR 12 and FAR 13.5 procedures, specific parts of FAR 15 will apply to this acquisition for the sole purposes as identified herein. The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), Price analysis for commercial and non-commercial items. For additional information, reference

FAR 31.201-3, Determining Reasonableness.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at the TEP. The TEP will be calculated as follows:

a) The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for

CLINs 0001 through 4012 for the Base period and option periods I through

IV; and

b) To account for the maximum six (6) month extension possible under the clause at FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the Government will use the sum of the proposed prices of the final option period (CLINs 4001 through

4012), prorate it to a six (6) month value, and add that amount to the sum of all CLINs (Base performance period and option periods I through IV). Please note that this calculation is used for evaluation purposes only. After award, the

Government reserves the right to exercise the Option to Extend Services at any time allowed by 52.217-8, and at the price allowed by 52.217-8.

The resulting amount will be the TEP. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise any option(s).

The table below illustrates the calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. This is for illustrative purposes only. Prices reflected in the table are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this, or any other, solicitation for the same or similar requirements.

Performance Period (POP) POP Length CLINs Proposed Price

Base 12 Months 0001-0011 $ 1,000,000.00

Option I 12 Months 1001-1011 $ 1,000,020.00

Option II 12 Months 2001-2011 $ 1,000,030.00

Option III 12 Months 3001-3011 $ 1,000,040.00

Option IV 12 Months 4001-4011 $ 1,000,050.00

Total Proposed Price for Base Period and Option I through IV $ 5,000,140.00

Evaluated Value - Six (6) Month Option to Extend Service IAW FAR 52.217-8 $ 500,025.00

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) $ 5,500,165.00