Attachment 4 - Section M.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Lowest Price Acceptable Past Performance (LPAPP) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement Procedures, Guidance and Information Subpart 215.3, and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors' past performance information will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis (pass or fail). By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, and representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a solicitation requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The evaluation process will include the following:

A. Price Evaluation Factor. The government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). In addition, each offeror’s separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17.

The price of a six-month extension authorized by 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be added to the proposed price for each potential contract performance period.

The TEP is a two-part computation. First, the offeror’s total proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the unit price, limited to two decimal places, for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)/sub Contract Line Item Number (SLIN) to confirm the extended total amount for each CLIN/SLIN; the sum of all extended amounts will be the offeror’s total proposed price. Second, the total proposed price (total amount for CLIN/SLINs) plus the sum of Option to Extend Services clause 52.217-8 formula (shown below) will constitute the TEP.

The formula for the Option to Extend Services amount is as follows:

Base Year = CLIN Unit Amount x 6* Option Year 1 = CLIN Unit Amount x 6* Option Year 2 = CLIN Unit Amount x 6*

(* Multiply unit amount by six (6) if the unit is one (1) month. If unit is not one month, then adjust the multiplicative factor to calculate the amount for a six months period of performance.)

The formula for the Option to Extend Services amount is as follows:

Base Year = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5 Option Year 1 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5 Option Year 2 = CLIN Extended Amount x 0.5

(When a CLIN is an annual price, use the 0.5 multiplicative factor to derive the six months performance value.)

Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the government to exercise the Options.

B. Past Performance Factor. The government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires, and (iii) any data independently obtained by the government. If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with Section L, paragraph 6.2, 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.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies of the offeror and/or subcontractors, key personnel, and subcontractors that will perform will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

(1) 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.

(2) The government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity that this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some, little, or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(3) Performance Quality Assessment: For each of the recent and relevant past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on the (i) Quality Assessment Criteria on delivered Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and (ii) the evaluation ratings in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), if available.

Each recent and relevant past performance information reviewed will be assigned a rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Quality Assessment Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

Satisfactory (S)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory (U)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award. For offerors in a teaming arrangement where two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture (JV), the following will apply: (i) for a JV at least one partner must be rated “Acceptable;” and (ii) for prime-subcontractor(s) partnerships, the prime must be rated “Acceptable” in order for the partnership to be rated “Acceptable” as a whole.

(4) Confidence Assessment Rating: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating of Acceptable - Satisfactory Confidence, or Unacceptable - Limited Confidence. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, evaluated offerors will receive a past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 3. As a result of the recency, relevancy, and performance quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant 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.

Unacceptable

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

C. Basis of Award. The government intends to evaluate proposals starting with the overall lowest priced offer. The number of proposals to be evaluated for past performance acceptability may be limited to the lowest priced offer at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. If the lowest priced proposal is found to have an UNACCEPTABLE Past Performance, then the next lowest priced proposal shall be evaluated. If that proposal is also found to be UNACCEPTABLE, the process described will be repeated until such time that the Government identifies an offer with an ACCEPTABLE Past Performance. The LPAPP process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of an acceptable past performance with the lowest evaluated price.