Attach_11 Section M BVT2.docx

Attachment 11 FA4626-20-R-0006 Section M – Subjective Best Value Tradeoff

1. Basis for Award.

a. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will be made using a Best Value Determination with Subjective Trade-off Techniques where past performance is slightly more important than2 price in accordance with procedures as identified in Section M. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. 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 the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below. At a minimum, a past performance rating of SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE shall be required for consideration of award. The Government reserves the right to trade off to a higher priced, greater rated past performance proposal if in the best interest of the Government. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their technical capability, prices and performance records. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

b. Evaluation Process:

(1) Initially, all responsive offers shall be ranked according to price as described in paragraph 2(a)3.

(2) All offerors will then be evaluated for technical capability in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in paragraph 2(a)1.

(3) All offerors will then receive a performance confidence assessment in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in paragraph 2(a)2. Any offeror that has either a “No Confidence” past performance rating or a “Limited Confidence” past performance rating will be removed from further consideration.

(4) The Source Selection Authority then shall make an integrated assessment subjective best value award decision.

(5) Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

c. Offerors must include prices for each CLIN. Failure to do so may be considered by the Government as non-responsive and cause for rejection of the entire offer.

d. 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.

e. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the Instructions to Offerors. 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. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1. Evaluation Factors for Award

a. Three evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals: Technical Capability, Past Performance and Price, with evaluation factors other than price, when combined, slightly more important than price.

1. Factor 1: Technical Requirements

a) An evaluation of technical acceptability of each offeror's technical capability proposal shall be made. The contracting officer may conduct discussions, request clarifications, and/or have communications with offerors to determine technical acceptability of their proposal IAW the solicitation requirements. The basis for evaluation of technical capability proposals is described below. At a minimum, the technical capability proposal shall consist of the following:

Subfactor 1: Site Superintendent Qualifications and Experience

Description: Offeror must submit resume (maximum of 2 pages) for site superintendent that shows a minimum of 5 years of relevant experience as defined in paragraph 2(c).

Subfactor 2: Licensure

Description: Offeror must submit Montana DNRC water well license (1 page) and Montana Dept of Labor (DoL) Master Plumber certification (1 page)

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical capability proposal identified above. The Government’s evaluation team shall evaluate overall technical capability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All factors of the Technical Capability proposal must be determined “Acceptable” using the descriptions below for the Technical Capability proposal to receive an Acceptable rating. If any of the factors are determined to be “Unacceptable,” the Technical Capability proposal will receive an Unacceptable rating.

Technical Capability Rating. The technical capability rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Each technical capability area will receive one of the ratings described below. The focus of the technical rating is to identify if the contractor has an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement. This rating will be based on the Government’s technical knowledge and historical data.

Table 1.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

2. Factor 2: Past Performance

a) Past performance will be evaluated based on recency, relevancy and quality assessments. Each offeror will receive an integrated overall Performance Confidence Rating. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.

b) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing—having surpassed 80% completion—or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated

c) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/ services performed under those contracts relate to the Price and Technical factors. Relevancy is defined as a project valued at $100,000.00 or more and includes all or some of the tasks required for this project, including constructing a well deeper than 1000 feet, installing a reverse osmosis water treatment system and connecting it to an existing building, or installing a domestic wastewater system. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance questionnaires (PPQs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

c) Performance Quality. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) as was reported from that particular source.

d) The Government will use past performance information submitted by the offerors’ references, other sources such as other federal Government offices, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)/Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) and private and commercial sources. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy is defined above. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Consideration will be given to whether the past performance information is applicable to the prime contractor, teaming partners and/or joint venture actually performing that part of the requirement. This information may include efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to the current effort.

e) Where the relevant past and present performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts, or performance evaluations, to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. If the offeror clearly demonstrates management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, this may allow the offeror to be rated higher than might otherwise be indicated. The Government will evaluate/assess all past performance information, positive and negative. Offerors will be offered the opportunity to respond to negative past performance reports if they had not had the opportunity to do so previously. If an offeror does not have any recent and relevant past performance, past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement may be considered. However, any critical subcontractor or key personnel submitted as past performance is required to perform on this contract. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance will receive a past performance rating of “Unknown Confidence.”

f) Each offeror will be assessed a Performance Confidence Rating described below, taking into account the recency, relevancy and quality of each citation reviewed:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

3. Factor 3: Price.

a) The Government shall rank all responsive offers by price, including any option prices (if applicable). An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3) or unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1) may not be considered for award.

b) All extensions of the unit prices shown will be subject to verification by the Government. In case of variation between the unit price and the extension, the unit prices will be considered to be the offer.

c) The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices offered are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options (if applicable) shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options(s).

d) Offerors are required to submit offers on all items listed on the SF 1442.

e) Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

f) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2. Contractor Responsibility. Prior to award, a responsibility determination will be made as described in FAR Part 9.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. 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.