Attachment 3 - Section M_.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3

Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award

Evaluation Basis for Award

A. This acquisition will be conducted using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract for Air University Warehouse Support Services as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in Table 1 below.

Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal must address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Volume II - Factor - Technical Acceptability Factor: The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. A rating of unacceptable in the technical subfactor will render that technical factor as Unacceptable in the Technical Evaluation. The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in Attachment 1. Detailed preparation instructions are included in Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders.

A. Subfactor 1 – Personnel Management Plan This subfactor is met when the offeror’s Personnel Management Plan adequately identify how the minimum requirements listed below will be addressed:

B. Key Personnel – Provided resume for qualified personnel intended for the position of contract manager to meet the requirements of PWS paragraphs 5.1. – 5.1.5.

C. Approach and process to preventing gaps in functional activities that could result from personnel issues, such as retirements, resignations, illness, etc. IAW PWS paragraph 5.2.2.

B. Subfactor 2 - Capability Plan This subfactor is met when the offeror’s Capability Plan clearly describes how its experience and ability will fulfil the minimum requirements listed below:

1. Experience and ability to be fully operational on day one (1) of contract IAW PWS paragraph 1.1.

2. Experience and ability to perform receipt of materials IAW PWS 1.1.1.

3. Experience and ability to perform inventory IAW PWS 1.1.2.

ATTACHMENT 3

4. Experience and ability to perform assembly and packaging of materials IAW PWS paragraph 1.1.4.

5. Experience and ability to perform mailing IAW paragraph 1.1.5.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

The technical volume shall not exceed 20 pages (not including resume(s)). A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the offeror.

VOLUME III – Price Evaluation Factor: The Government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP).

Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer. The offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of CLINs X001 and X001 base year and the option years. CLINs X002 and X003 are Cost Reimbursable CLINs and will not be evaluated in the TEP.

Evaluating the Option CLINs do not obligate the Government to exercise the Options. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6-months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base year and option years will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services. No pricing is requested and will not be evaluated if submitted for the 6-month period referenced in FAR clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services.

In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness; therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). However, if at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

1233858702A Highlight