Attachment_4_-_Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Basis for Contract Award

This is a Subjective Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS), and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS). Award will be made based on the Best

Value, meaning the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably. The Best Value technique chosen for this acquisition will be Subjective Tradeoff, where technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. No contract award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, offerors should submit proposals that represent their best efforts. 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. In the event discussions are to be conducted, the competitive range will be established IAW FAR 15.306(c).

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. 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 as unacceptable.

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors

In evaluating proposals, the Government will select the proposal that is the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer to the Government. The Government will evaluate proposals for price, technical acceptability and past performance, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors. Offerors are advised that their initial submission should be their best effort. Only

Technical and Past Performance acceptable proposals, either initially or as a result of discussions, are eligible for award. If an award is made without discussions; proposal revisions will not be permitted. The first step of the evaluation process is to review the cover page and if applicable, any proposed Team Arrangements/Joint Venture Documentation for completeness. If an offeror is claiming this business approach, failure to submit Teaming Arrangement/Joint Venture documentation will render the offerors proposal non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

The second step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and rank all responsive proposals by overall total evaluated price (TEP) from lowest to highest. The TEP shall be the sum of:

(1) The total price of Solicitation Attachment K – Market Basket (Pricing for Common Items by Trade Categories);

(2) The total price of Attachment B – Supplemental Priced Item (SPI) List; and

(3) 50% of Option Year 4 Pricing from Attachment K and Attachment B.

a. The additional 50% represents the total cumulative price of 52.217-8. Should

FAR clause 52.217-8 be exercised in the future, the price will be pro-rated to the actual performance required.

The evaluation team will then proceed to the third step. In the third step, the first three (3) of the lowest priced, responsive proposals shall be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance. In the event that the first three (3) evaluated proposals do not yield at least two (2) offers with an acceptable technical rating and one (1) offeror with a Substantial Confidence past performance rating, the evaluation process will continue until a minimum of two (2) technically acceptable proposals are identified and one (1) Substantial Confidence past performance rating offeror are identified or all offers are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision. The Source Selection Authority may also make the determination it is in the best interest of the Government to evaluate all offerors for technical acceptability and past performance prior to rendering the best value award decision.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the acquisition process, by its nature is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The following evaluation factors will be used to arrive at an award decision:

Factor 1: Price

Factor 2: Technical

Factor 3: Past Performance

Volume I – Price

Prices will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offers conforming to all requirements of the solicitation will be ordered from lowest to highest according to Total

Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP will be calculated as follows:

(1) TEP = Total Evaluated Price of Attachment K – Market Basket (base and all option years) + Attachment B – Supplemental Priced Item (SPI) List + 50% of Option Year 4

Pricing from Attachment K and Attachment B.

(2) Attachment K – Market Basket shall be completed utilizing the discount coefficient percentages proposed in Attachment Y, Database Pricing Discount. Discrepancies in prices between Attachment K – Market Basket and Attachment Y, Database Pricing

Discount may render an offer as unacceptable.

(3) Attachment K – Market Basket is for evaluation purposes only and will not be awarded as an attachment to the resulting contract. However, Attachment Y, Database Pricing Discount will be placed on the awarded offeror’s contract and will be strictly enforced to determine not-to-exceed prices for corresponding items (see

SOW para 1.4.2).

(4) Attachment B – Supplemental Priced Item (SPI) List Items includes those items that cannot be found in the category databases for Attachment Y. The SPI List

(Attachment B) will be added to the contract. SPI list proposals must be for exact manufacturers, but “like-items” (see paragraph 1.6.2.5. of the Statement of Work) may be bi-laterally added to the list with a post-award modification.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each offer to determine whether item prices are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed for similar items. An offer may be rejected if the Source Selection Authority determines prices are significantly unbalanced or if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Volume II – Technical Acceptability

Technical evaluations will start with the first three (3) of the lowest priced, responsive proposals.

The rating assigned to this technical evaluation factor will be based on the offeror’s proposed technical volume. The validity and thoroughness of the offeror’s technical volume will be evaluated as specific evidence of the offeror’s understanding and capability to perform this requirement. An overall rating will be assigned; failure to be assigned an acceptable rating in any technical sub factor will render the entire technical volume of an offeror as unacceptable.

Evaluators will assign a rating as outlined below in Table C-1.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

(1) Technical Sub Factor 1: Store Management Plan

a. Offerors shall submit a Store Management Plan that clearly demonstrates offerors understanding of the management and staffing requirements of the SOW. The

Store Management Plan will be rated acceptable if it meets the following minimum requirements:

i. Offeror shall submit a Store Management Plan that:

1. Identifies workforce composition (to include seasonal hiring if proposed) showing labor category, experience, contractor manning equivalents (CMEs), and associated number of hours for each functional area to meet all COCESS SOW requirements for the base period and all option years.

2. Includes an organizational chart that identifies key personnel such as the on-site contract manager, alternate contract manager(s), and all other personnel offerors propose to manage and staff this requirement.

3. Offeror submits a staffing plan that details how the offeror intends to recruit, retain, and replace sufficient personnel who have the knowledge, experience, and skills to perform as required in the

COCESS SOW.

4. Identify how the offeror intends to continue uninterrupted services during personnel absences, such as sickness, vacations, etc.

without any degradation in services provided.

(2) Technical Sub Factor 2: Transition Plan

a. Offerors shall submit a Transition Plan that clearly demonstrates a reasonable approach to how the offeror intends to manage, staff, schedule, and complete all required tasks within thirty (30) days of contract award so that the contractor will be able to perform IAW the SOW on the first day of the performance period without degradation in services from the previous contract.

i. Offeror shall submit a Transition Plan that:

1. Identifies plan for obtaining base and Common Access Card

(CAC) access for personnel.

2. Identifies plan to stock the COCESS store with recommended store stock items.

Volume III – Past Performance

Offers evaluated for technical acceptability will also be evaluated for past performance. The

Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s past performance by analyzing offeror provided past performance information, past performance questionnaires received, and other past performance information data independently obtained from Government and/or commercial sources which may include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); or other databases.

Contractors must submit no more than five (5) recent and relevant past performance records.

Past performance information submitted in excess of the first five contracts will not be evaluated.

(1) Past Performance will first be evaluated for recency. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Recency will be evaluated as “meets” or “does not meet.”

(2) Past Performance will then be evaluated for relevancy. The offeror shall identify what elements of each contract are deemed relevant to this solicitation and indicate what percentage of service was performed by the offeror (prime), subcontractor (if applicable) and teaming contractor (if applicable). The final determination of the identified and demonstrated relevancy elements of each contract will be the decision of the Government. Relevant past performance requires performance of COCESS contracts similar in scope, magnitude (dollar value), and complexity to the requirements defined in this solicitation. Relevancy will be evaluated using the below table:

Adjectival Rating: Description:

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.

(3) Finally, Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned a performance confidence assessment rating. Performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based upon the offeror’s past performance information. Performance confidence will be assessed as one of the following rating categories:

Adjectival 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.

**NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, 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 (or “neutral”) past performance.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions 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 confidence rating on any 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.

At a minimum, the first three (3) lowest priced offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability and past performance. Evaluations will continue as necessary until at least two (2) offers are determined technically acceptable and one (1) offeror is determined to have a Substantial Confidence Past Performance rating or until all offers are evaluated.

The Source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment to render the best value award decision, or may open discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the

Government.