Amendment 0002_Attachment 3_Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition will be conducted using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures and award will be made to the responsible offeror. Technical and past performance proposals will be evaluated, then all proposals that have both technical and past performance rated as “Acceptable” will be ranked by price. Award will be made to the lowest priced proposal meeting the evaluation standards.

By submission of its offer, the offeror is required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. All offers receiving an unacceptable rating shall be determined outside the competitive range, if established. Offeror must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR: Initially, the Technical Evaluation Team (TET) will determine whether each offeror’s technical proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table A-1 below. The TET shall evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal to assess whether the offeror’s technical proposal will satisfy all the minimum requirements established in the following technical subfactor, as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Table A-1

TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

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 30 pages. The page limit does not include the title page, table of contents, any list of acronyms or definitions. 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.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor:

Subfactor: Personnel and Capabilities Management Plan: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s Personnel and Capabilities Management Plan clearly describe its approach/process to ensure the employment of qualified personnel, as necessary for functional continuity. At a minimum, the Personnel and Capabilities Management Plan shall describe the following:

Key Personnel – Resumes will be evaluated to ensure offeror provides qualified individuals who could reasonably fill positions designated as Program Manager (PM) and Quality Control Manager (QCM) (PWS paragraph 1.16.14 and 1.16.14.1). All resumes should be annotated to indicate those the Government can expect to fill positions and those which are merely representative of the kinds of personnel the vendor believes it can provide.

Adequately address approach and process to prevent gaps in the contract management team for more than 30 days to meet the minimum requirements at PWS paragraph 1.16.14.2.

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR. Next, the past performance evaluation team shall evaluate the past performance of all technically acceptable offers on an acceptable or unacceptable basis using the ratings in Table A-2 below. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the PWS.

The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Attachment 4), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government (e.g., the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)). If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with Section L, does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company, or joint ventures of the parent company, when:

(1) The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

(2) When the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed effort.

Contractors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the contractor has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports an “unacceptable” rating on any past performance questionnaire evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

(A) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last five (5) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the five (5) year period.

(B) Relevant is defined as contract efforts for staffing and administrative support to educational entities, similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity, than the effort described in this solicitation. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and identify aspects of the contracts deemed relevant and how they relate to the proposed effort.

Table A-2

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance.

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR. Finally, the Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal, as required by Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, as described below. Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders will not be considered or evaluated. Evaluation of the option(s) will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness: comparison of proposed prices received, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with independent Government cost estimates, comparison with market research, and analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of 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.

Offers shall be ranked according to price, including option prices. All line item prices (except CLINs X002s) will be evaluated. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the pricing schedule by the unit price for CLINs X001 for the base year, and each option period to confirm the extended amount for each. CLINs X002s are Cost Reimbursable CLINs and will not be evaluated in the TEP. 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.