Attachment 9 - Section M - Evaluation Factors - Rev1 JAN 2026.pdf

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1. This is a Performance Price Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12, 15, and 16, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and Department of the Air Force FAR Supplement (DAFFARS).

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 Performance Price Tradeoff that permits a tradeoff between price and performance in reaching the award decision. This may result in an award being made to a higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority determines that the past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. No contract award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

DISCUSSIONS:

2. 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 discussion are to be conducted, the competitive range will be established IAW FAR 15.306(c).

SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

3. 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.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

4. 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 from discussions, are eligible for award. If an award is made without discussions, proposal revisions will not be permitted.

4.1. The first step of the evaluation process is to review Volume I – Administrative

Documents, for completeness. If an offeror is claiming a Teaming Arrangement, failure to submit the required documentation will render the offerors’ proposal non-responsive and no further evaluation will be conducted.

4.2. The second step of the evaluation process is to evaluate prices and arrange all responsive proposals by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest. TEP shall be the total of Attachment 2 – Pricing Table. It will include a monthly price, pre-priced items, and unique requirement prices for the entire five-year ordering period, as well as 50% of the total of Ordering Period 5. 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.

4.3. 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.

4.4. 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.

4.5. 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.

4.6. The following evaluation factors will be used to arrive at an award decision:

4.6.1. Factor 1: Price

4.6.2. Factor 2: Technical

4.6.3. Factor 3: Past Performance

FACTOR I – PRICE:

5. Prices will be evaluated on Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP shall be the total of

Attachment 2 – Pricing Table. It will include a monthly price, pre-priced items, and unique requirement prices for the entire five-year ordering period, as well as 50% of the total of Ordering Period 5. 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. Evaluating subsequent years in the ordering period does not obligate the Government to utilize it.

5.1. Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. 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. However, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit other than certified cost or pricing data to determine reasonableness.

5.2. 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.

FACTOR II – TECHNICAL:

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

Table C-1 Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

6.1. Technical Sub Factor 1: Full Time Personnel

6.1.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine whether it:

6.1.1.1. Clearly demonstrates understanding of the minimum management and staffing requirements of the PWS.

6.1.1.2. Identifies the number of full-time personnel to be located on the installation.

6.1.1.3. Describes each individual’s qualifications and background sufficient to demonstrate capability to meet the PWS requirements.

6.1.1.4. Provides a Transition Plan that presents a clear, reasonable, and executable approach to completing all transition tasks within thirty (30) days of contract award without degradation of services.

6.1.1.5. Addresses, at a minimum, the method for obtaining base and Common Access Card (CAC) access for personnel.

6.1.2. Evaluation Standard:

6.1.2.1. A proposal that clearly and convincingly demonstrates understanding of staffing requirements, presents an executable transition plan, and provides sufficient qualifications data will be rated Acceptable.

6.1.2.2. A proposal that fails to demonstrate sufficient understanding, lacks key details, or relies on restatement of the PWS will be rated Unacceptable.

6.2. Technical Sub Factor 2: Certification Requirement for Personnel

6.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine whether it provides sufficient evidence of required personnel certifications and relevant experience. Evaluation will consider whether the Offeror:

6.2.1.1. Submits documentation or information demonstrating possession of required certifications (e.g., SEC+, CCNA, OSP/ISP, BISCI Certified in Fiber Optics and Copper, or equivalent).

6.2.1.2. Clearly identifies each individual’s years of experience.

6.2.2. Evaluation Standard:

6.2.2.1. A proposal that includes adequate supporting documentation for certifications and experience that meet or exceed solicitation requirements will be rated Acceptable.

6.2.2.2. A proposal that omits certifications, lacks substantiating evidence, or fails to demonstrate qualified personnel will be rated Unacceptable.

FACTOR III – PAST PERFORMANCE:

7. 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 and any other past performance data independently obtained from Government and/or commercial sources which may include but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other databases.

7.1. Contractors may 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.

7.2. Each Past Performance record will first be evaluated for recency. Recency will be defined as contracts within the past three years from the date of the issuance of the solicitation with a 12-month performance minimum. Recency will be evaluated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” as outlined below in Table C-2.

Table C-2 Recency Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable Past performance submission is for contract work completed prior to the solicitation, but not before the previous three years and has a 12-month performance minimum.

Unacceptable Past performance submission is for contract work completed after the solicitation date and/or more than three years ago or does not have a 12-month performance minimum.

7.3. Each Past Performance record 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 other contracts similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements defined in this solicitation. Magnitude will be defined as a contract value of $3M annually.

Relevancy will be evaluated as outlined below in Table C-3.

Table C-3 Relevancy Ratings

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

7.4. 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 outlined below in Table C-4.

Table C-4 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

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 by 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

7.5. 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.

7.6. 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.

7.7. 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.

SUMMARY:

8. 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.