Section M.pdf

SSP Attachment 4 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award to an 8(a) Small Business. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in this solicitation and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

(a) The government will award a contract 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. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

(1) PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) PRICE

Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

(b) The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options, the total price for the basic requirement and the six (6) month extension. The total evaluated price will be displayed on Attachment 3 – JB Custodial Bid Schedule in the Summary tab on cell F12 in lieu of inputting the price on the SF 1449. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the base or option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, emailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(d) The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer 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 Source Selection Authority, 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.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors, the offeror accedes to the terms of this solicitation and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Initially, offers will be ranked according to price, which includes the base year price, all option year prices, and the six (6) month extension price. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities by the unit price identified in Attachment 3 – JB Custodial Bid Schedule for each item to confirm the extended amount for each line item. All sub-totals will then be added to confirm the total for the base, all option periods, and the six (6) month extension, resulting in the total evaluated price which will be displayed on Attachment 3 – JB Custodial Bid Schedule in the Summary tab on cell F12.

The six (6) month extension of services is IAW FAR 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services" and will only be utilized if necessary. The six (6) month extension of services is not to be considered Option Year five (5). Additionally, the proposed pricing for the six (6) month extension will be based on Option Year four

(4) pricing.

B. Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer will seek recent and relevant performance information on all offers based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

C. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts providing management, tools, equipment, and labor, for Custodial Services that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexity as this solicitation requires. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating of “Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The Government shall give greater consideration to offerors whose past performance information rates “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” than to those offerors whose past performance information rates “Neutral Confidence.”

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

D. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The following table, also from the DoD Source Selection Guide, describes past performance relevancy ratings.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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.

E. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating, then that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point.

Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

F. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

G. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clericalerrors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract withoutthe opportunity for proposal revision.

H. 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 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.