Section_M_Automated_High_Vacuum_Gauge_System.docx

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 31 Mar 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Acceptability and Price. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the Source Selection Decision.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the AFMETCAL Program. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. 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 requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the evaluation factors, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the instructions and evaluation criteria of the RFP.

1.5 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(c), Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, those Offerors may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors.

1.6 Discussions

In accordance with DFARS 215.306, Exchange with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, discussions should be conducted for all acquisitions with an estimated value of $100M or more. However, the SSA reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from both a technical and price standpoint.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Exchanges conducted to clarify or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions (see FAR 15.306).

If, during the evaluation period, 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. In the event discussions are held, discussions will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306, Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals. If the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) 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, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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.

Offeror responses to ENs and the 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.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. 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.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Price

2.2 Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below in Table 1, Technical Ratings. An “Unacceptable” rating will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is cautioned that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Proposals will be evaluated on the capability of the item offered to meet the Government requirements as stated in Section C (Purchase Description) of the solicitation.

Technical acceptability will be determined solely on the content and merit of the information submitted in response to this request for proposal. Technical Tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that the item proposed meets the requirements set forth in Section C (Purchase Description). The offeror shall provide a written response to each paragraph number in the Purchase Description with sufficient technical literature.

2.3 Price Factor

The Government will conduct a complete price analysis on technically acceptable proposals. Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, (4) Total Evaluated Price, and (5) affordability. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, and/or unaffordable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.1 Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness.

2.4.2 Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, 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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.4.3 Unbalanced pricing: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The total evaluated price will be calculated as follows:

(1) On the basic year, the evaluated price will be the unit price proposed multiplied by the specified unit quantity (e.g. 2 EACH).

(2) For the option years, the evaluated price will be the unit price proposed multiplied by the maximum quantity available on the Option CLIN. Offeror’s are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options.

(3) The sum of all CLINs (Basic Year and Options) will represent the total evaluated price.

2.4.5 Affordability: The Government will evaluate the affordability of each offeror’s Price proposal by comparing the total proposed price (or for FPI contracts the maximum contract Government liability) to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison between the total price (or proposed maximum contract Government liability) and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.