Section M Final.pdf

FA568227R0001

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Section M Addendum - Evaluation Factors and Basis for Award

M.1. SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1. Source Selection Methodology. This acquisition will utilize a Tradeoff Source Selection where the

Combined Technical/Risk Factor is significantly more important than Price. This subjective tradeoff is in accordance with RFO 15.103-1 and RFO 15.2 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 Aug 2022.

Offerors will first be evaluated for Responsiveness. Offerors that receive an acceptable rating for Responsiveness will advance to the evaluation factors of Combined Technical/Risk and Price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is compliant with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority

(SSA) reasonably determines that the superior technical ratings of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an overall assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M.1.2. Basis for Contract Award. A single Request For Proposals (RFP) will be issued with the anticipation of a single award contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all the solicitation's requirements and provides the best value based upon the evaluation method described in M.2. below.

M.1.3. Negotiations. The Government intends to award without negotiations but reserves the right to conduct negotiations if determined necessary. Any negotiations will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) RFO 15.204. If the Contracting Officer (CO) 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 CO, with the approval of the SSA, 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.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS

M.2.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Contractor Responsiveness

Factor 2: Combined Technical/Risk Sub-factor 1: Capability Sub-factor 2: Operational Plan Sub-factor 3: Prior Experience

Factor 3: Price

M.2.2. Evaluation Process. The Government may award the contract to other than the lowest price, if the difference in the Combined Technical/Risk evaluation of an offeror with higher price represents the best value to the

Government. The evaluation process will be conducted in steps as described here following. Proposals must meet the requirements of each step to advance to the next step in the evaluation process:

FACTOR 1 - CONTRACTOR RESPONSIVENESS FACTOR: Offerors will be evaluated for responsiveness. A rating of unacceptable for any element will result in an overall unacceptable rating and therefore the offeror will be determined non-responsive, removed from competition and not be considered for award. Only responsive proposals will advance to Step 2.

FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL FACTOR: Offerors must receive at least a marginal rating for each subfactor in order for their proposal to receive a marginal combined technical/risk rating. All technical sub-factors of Factor 2 are equal in importance. The overall weight of Factor 2 is significantly more important than Factor 3. Only technically marginal, or better, offers will advance to Step 3.

*Proposals should identify perceived strengths in each technical subfactor. Evaluators will consider if these perceived strengths exceed the standard IAW the descriptions in Table M-2A and Table M-2B.

FACTOR 3 - PRICE FACTOR: The price evaluation team will evaluate the offerors’ price, to determine completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness.

M.3. SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.3.1. FACTOR 1: CONTRACTOR REPONSIVENESS.

Offerors are required to meet ALL solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, essential contractor services plan, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. In order to be determined responsive, an offeror must submit all documentation no later than the date listed in block 8 of the Contract Standard Form 1449 (SF 1449).

Table M-1

Rating

Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the offeror provides the following documentation:

Tab A. Section A - Solicitation/Contract SF 1449. Offerors are required to complete blocks 30A, 30B and 30C of the Contract SF 1449. An official having the authority to bind the offeror's company contractually must sign and date the Contract SF 1449. The Contract SF 1449 must bear an original authorized signature. By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, as written in the

RFP. In doing so the offeror agrees to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP sections A through

M.

Tab B. Representations and Certifications. Complete the necessary fill-ins, representations, and certifications in

RFP sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

Tab C. Submit in a printout showing Active status in SAM. The printout shall show the company name and UEI.

An Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation and at time of award (see

RFO 52.204-13, System for Award Management Maintenance, for the requirement to maintain SAM registration during performance and through final payment).

Tab D. Acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Contract SF

30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, if required.

Tab E. Current Italian business registrations, license required to legally operate and employ personnel within the

Republic of Italy (R-DFARS 252.225-7042).

Tab F. Chamber of Commerce documentation proving the authority of the firm to operate in the specific business sector of the instant solicitation, showing the Capital of the firm, names of partners/owners and submission of financial reports and changes to partners/owners. This document must not be older than 90 days from date of proposal.

Tab G. Current Documento Unico di Regolarita' Contributiva (DURC) certifying the payment of host nation social security benefits or equivalent documentation. This documentation must not be older than 90 days from date of proposal.

Tab H. Current Documento Unico di Regolarita' Fiscale (DURF) as issued by the Italian Agenzia delle Entrate certifying the fiscal regularity of the company, its compliance with the payments of taxes and other fiscal obligations in Italy.

M.3.2. FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL/RISK

The Combined Technical/Risk rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror's technical/risk approach for meeting the Government's requirement. In order to be considered awardable, the offeror must receive a minimum rating of "Marginal" for each subfactor’s combined technical/risk (Tables M-2A & M-2B).

Definitions:

Significant Strength: is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength: is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: is any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission.

Table M-2A Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table M-2 reflects how risk will be evaluated in conjunction with the measure of merit for each sub-factor.

Table M-2B Technical Risk Rating Method

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

M.3.2.1. Sub-Factor 1 - Capability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proficiency to routinely perform comprehensive custodial services across multiple geographically separated facilities as those described in the Custodial

Service Technical Specifications (Section J, Attachment 1) based on the information provided in the Capability

Overview Sheet.

Measure of merit: This standard is met when the offeror’s Capability Overview demonstrates:

a) A complete operational methodology confirming the capability to execute all mandatory custodial service tasks

(routine, periodic, and emergency/on-call services) in strict compliance with the PWS (Section J, Attachment 1).

b) Adequacy of facilities, equipment, systems, tools, supplies, and other resources necessary to perform the required custodial services. The Offeror shall demonstrate its capability to provide, maintain, replenish, and deploy the minimum equipment, supplies, and related resources identified in “APPENDIX E. Minimum Required Equipment List” of the PWS

(Section J, Attachment 1), as well as any additional resources necessary to perform routine, periodic, and emergency/on-call services at all required geographically separated facilities.

M.3.2.2 Sub-Factor 2 – Operational Plan. The Government will evaluate the offeror's approach to of custodial services across multiple geographically separated facilities throughout the life of the contract. The offeror’s operational plan demonstrates the ability to coordinate operations, maintain service standards, and address challenges specific to custodial services at scale. Upon contract award, these plans may be incorporated into the basic contract as part of the contract requirements.

M.3.3. FACTOR 3: PRICE

The Government will evaluate the total price proposed for the custodial services firm fixed price contract listed in the

"Grand Total" Tab of the Custodial Services Priced Proposal (Section J, Attachment 2) to determine whether prices are complete, balanced, and reasonable for the work to be performed. Only EURO or USD currency offers will be accepted.

The following conversion rate shall apply for offers submitted in EURO: 0.8549 EUR = 1 USD.

The offeror's price proposal will not be assigned a rating but will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balance as follows:

M.3.3.1. Completeness. The Government will evaluate the price for completeness to ensure the inclusion and submission of the price data and other contracting consideration information required in Section L.5. Proposals that include all the work elements necessary for the custodial services contract shall be considered complete. The use of ambiguous responses such as "Not Applicable (N/A)," "To Be Determined (TBD)," or leaving sections blank will be considered grounds for deeming the proposal incomplete. Incomplete proposed prices, either initially proposed or updated later as a result of negotiations (in case negotiations are conducted), may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement.

M.3.3.2. Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the price data submitted per Section L.5., using one or more of the techniques defined in RFO 15.404, Proposal Analysis, to determine whether the price is reasonable. This includes evaluating whether the proposed prices align with market rates for custodial services, labor costs, and materials.

Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated. Offerors whose prices are determined to be unreasonable IAW RFO 15.404 may not be considered for award. IAW RFO 15.403, if the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request submission of other than certified cost or pricing data to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.3.3.3. Balance. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

The Government will evaluate all separately priced line items or subline items listed on the Custodial Services Price

List to determine if it poses any unnecessary risks for the Government.