Attachment_4_-_Section_M_-_Vacuum_Standard_Kit.docx

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

The Government will evaluate quotations in accordance with the Simplified Acquisition Procedures in FAR Part 13. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of technical capability, past performance and price. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than Price or past performance; however, Price and past performance will contribute substantially to the award determination.

1.2 A single contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the superior technical performance of the higher priced offer outweighs the price difference. The Contracting Officer will base the decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the acquisition process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 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.

1.4 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.

1.5 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.

1.6 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 13.106-2(b).

1.7 Discussions

Discussion may be conducted to address areas where a proposal does not meet the purchase description. However, 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 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.

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. 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, 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.

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.

1.8 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

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 subfactors. 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 and Subfactors

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

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Purchase Description Technical Requirements Subfactor 2: Firmware Design Subfactor 3: Transducer Adjustment Subfactor 4: Manual

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Technical is most important and Price and past performance are less important. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactors are listed from most important to least important. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than Price and past performance; however, Price and past performance will contribute substantially to the award decision.

2.2 Technical Factor (Subfactor 1)

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for only subfactor one. If subfactor one is evaluated as “Unacceptable” it 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 reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactor:

Subfactor 1: Purchase Description (PD) Technical Requirements

Description: This subfactor evaluates the ability to offer a complete description of the proposed system and its ability to meet the PD requirements. The evaluation shall take into account the level of detail, theory, analysis, and test data used to substantiate the proposals claims.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is a pass/fail determination and is met when the offeror’s proposal satisfies the PD requirements set forth in the following paragraphs of the PD: 1.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.5.1, 4.6, 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.7.5, 4.7.6, and 6.0. Paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.4, and 5.0 will be evaluated IAW section 2.3 below.

2.3 Technical Factor (Subfactors 2, 3, and 4)

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals and unit on an evaluation basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for only subfactors two, three, and four. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” 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 reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 2: Firmware Design

Description: This subfactor evaluates the construction of the proposed system’s firmware in accordance with the PD requirements.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an acceptable approach and understanding of the performance requirements set forth in paragraph 3.2.1 of the PD. Meeting the requirement in paragraph 3.2.1 of the PD will result in an acceptable rating.

Strength opportunities are: Accessibility of functions using minimal amount of actions. Intent of each option under active menu is understood by user without referencing manual. Ability to step back one menu at a time. Firmware has additional value added utility.

Subfactor 3: Transducer Adjustment

Description: This subfactor evaluates the proposed system’s calibration of the transducer in accordance with the PD requirements.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an acceptable approach and understanding of the performance requirements set forth in paragraph 3.4 of the PD. Meeting the requirement in paragraph 3.4 of the PD will result in an acceptable rating.

Strength opportunities are: Accessibility and ease of Transducer adjustment. Calibration and adjustment takes minimal amount of time.

Subfactor 4: Manual

Description: This subfactor evaluates the proposed system’s manual in accordance with the PD requirements.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an acceptable approach and understanding of the performance requirements set forth in paragraph 5.0 of the PD. Meeting the requirement in paragraph 5.0 of the PD will result in an acceptable rating.

Strength opportunities are: Manual is logically organized. Manual conveys all information while still being concise.

2.4 Price Factor

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 13.106-3, 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.

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.

2.4.6 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.5 Past Performance Factor

Past performance will be conducted in accordance with DFAR 213.106-2(b)(1) by utilizing the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) for FSC and PSC code for the supplies being purchased.

In the case of a supplier without a record of relevant past performance history in SPRS for the FSC or PSC of the supplies being purchased, the supplier may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for its past performance history.