Section M - Evaluation Factors 20250516_v2.pdf

Page M1 of M4

Oracle Consolidated Project (OCP)

F41999-25-R-XXXX

16 May 2025

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF SELECTION

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The basis of award is Best Value Trade-Off. This process permits trade-offs among evaluation factors. The NAFI can accept other than the lowest priced proposal. In making this determination, all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, may support award to other than the lowest priced offerors. The NAFI will select the responsive, responsible vendor whose proposal represents the best value considering Technical, Past Performance and Price.

2. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The NAFI intends to award one (1) contract for the performance of this requirement. The date of contract award is the date the NAFI’s Contracting Officer signs Section A.

2.1 Proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without discussions with the

Contractors, unless discussions are determined to be necessary. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the Contractor’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

The NAFI reserves the right to award all line items, some line items or make no award.

3. EVALUATION FACTOR(S)

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each offer. These factors are listed in their relative order of importance. If the NAFI determines the Offeror’s technical proposal is rated marginal or below no further evaluation will be conducted.

3.1 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

The Offeror’s Technical proposal will address their overall technical approach which clearly outlines an understanding of the requirement, (1) presents an acceptable technical proposal to the Statement of Objectives (SOO) instead of copying the SOO; (2) presents a viable Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) that is a clear, comprehensive, and detailed document for implementation and (3) The Offeror provides all requested documentation as outlined in Section L. The proposal will be evaluated for content, thoroughness, and understanding of the solicitation requirements as stated in the SOO.

The CSOW will be incorporated at contract award in Section J. Each sub-factor under the Technical Proposal will be evaluated independently. See Section C, Statement of Objectives, for the technical aspects of the proposal.

Page M2 of M4

F41999-25-R-XXXX

16 May 2025

3.1.1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating:

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The NAFI will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s technical proposal for meeting the NAFI’s requirements.

Exceptional

(Blue) Technical Solution indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable (Green)

Technical Solution meets requirements and indicates adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate to low.

Marginal (Yellow)

Technical Solution has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (Red)

Technical Solution does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. The Technical Solution is un-awardable.

3.1.2. ORAL PRESENTATIONS/INTERVIEWS:

As part of the Technical Evaluation, the NAFI may require an oral presentation/interview from any offeror that is determined to have a technical rating of ACCEPTABLE OR GREATER. Based on the result of the oral presentation/interview, the Technical Evaluation Rating of the Offeror may be adjusted. The Offeror will be provided with advance notification of at least three (3) days prior.

3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) submitted by the Contractor’s references, as well as the Past Performance Information (PPI) narratives submitted by the Contractor. The NAFI will consider the performance quality of recent past performance, focusing on efforts that are relevant to the requirements in the SOO. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions or critical sub-contractors, if such resources significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort.

The NAFI reserves the right to use both data provided by the Contractor and data obtained from other sources in conducting this assessment. A Contractor’s past performance is

Page M3 of M4

F41999-25-R-XXXX

16 May 2025 deemed “Acceptable” based on its performance record when the NAFI has a reasonable expectation that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort based on recent, relevant, and quality of work performed within the last five years as determined by the PPI narratives, NAFI obtained sources of data, and PPQ submitted.

3.2.1. Relevancy Rating

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Relevant (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant

(SR)

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

Not Relevant (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

3.2.2. The Past Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) represents the degree of confidence the NAFI has in a Contractor’s ability to provide the required services based upon the Contractor’s past work record. Each Contractor will receive an integrated PCA, which is the rating for the Past Performance Factor using the evaluation factors in the Confidence Assessment Rating table below. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Proposal, the resulting PCA is made at the factor level and represents the NAFI’s confidence that the Contractor can successfully execute the requirements, taking into account, recent, relevant, and quality performance.

3.2.2.1 Confidence Assessment Rating

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, there is a high expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, there is a reasonable expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, there is a low expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, there is no expectation the offeror will successfully perform the

Page M4 of M4

F41999-25-R-XXXX

16 May 2025 required effort.

4. PRICE

The NAFI conducts price analysis to ensure that all proposed prices are realistic, fair and reasonable. Unreasonable prices are grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition, unless the contractor verifies price realism or offers bid bonds. The Contractor will label pricing IAW Section B. The unit price will be firm-fixed priced. The NAFI will evaluate pricing based on the total price. This factor is analyzed but not rated.

[END OF SECTION M]