Addendum_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

Attachment 4

ADDENDUM

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed Price contract under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) in accordance with FAR Part 13 – Simplified Acquisition Procedures, and FAR Part 12 – Acquisition of Commercial Items, 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 the Air Force FAR site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Addendum – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents section of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to provide the best overall offer to the Government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award up to one (1) contract for the purchase of High Power Amplifiers for Comm Test Sets resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. 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 found technically unacceptable.

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 RFQ, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the instructions and evaluation criteria of the

RFQ.

1.5. Discussions

The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from both a technical, past performance, and price standpoint.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

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 final award decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.6. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

The Purchase Description (PD) contains requirements that must be contractually satisfied in order to be eligible for contract award. These requirements are essential characteristics for execution of this contract. Furthermore, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as 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.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors

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

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Award will be based on technical acceptability as defined in Paragraph 2.2, past performance as defined in Paragraph 2.3, and price as defined in Paragraph 2.4. Technical acceptability and past performance, when combined, are more important than price; however, price will contribute substantially to the final award decision.

2.2 Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals using an Acceptable/Unacceptable Technical Rating. Technical acceptability will be determined solely on the content and merit of the information submitted in response to this request for quotation.

Any paragraph from the purchase description evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Technical Tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. 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 reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

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.

The past performance evaluation will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. 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 Technical requirements in the purchase description. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.3.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it qualifies as recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past ten

(10) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical requirements in the purchase description.

For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical requirements within the purchase description (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, contracts:

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.

2.3.3 Performance Quality Assessment

For each relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available.

The quality 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 quality levels:

Table 2.1

2.3.4 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

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.

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 2.2 – Performance Confidence Assessments, as stated below.

Table 2.2

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

A more relevant record of past performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. Substantial and Satisfactory Confidence may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

2.4. Price Factor

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete and/or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the CO 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 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. 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.

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 option years, the evaluated price will be the unit price proposed multiplied by the maximum quantity available on the Option CLIN;

(3) The sum of all CLINs will represent the total evaluated price.

Evaluation of all options to determine the Total Evaluated Price shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.