Attachment_4_Eval_Method_V2.pdf

Attachment 3, Evaluation Method and Criteria

Request for Quote (RFQ)

Evaluation Method and Criteria

For

HQ Air Force District of Washington PK

(HQ AFDW PK)

844th COMMUNICATIONS GROUP

FA7014-15-T-3002

17 July 2015

1.0 Basis for Contract Award: The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP memo of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.0 This contract is competed in the small business pool on FedBizOps. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the 844th Communications Group Data Center Reconfiguration, however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract.

3.0 Any formal communication such as requests for clarification, discussions, and information concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to the Point of Contact below.

Proposals shall be electronically submitted to the primary and alternate POC via email.

3.1 Submission of Proposals:

3.1.1 Proposal Due Date: No Later Than: 14 September 2015 at 12:00 PM (EDT).

3.1.1 Questions. Questions may be submitted to the POC via email No later than 10 September 2015, 12:00 (EDT). Follow-up/additional questions will not be accepted after this date. Answers to submitted questions will be provided to all prospective vendors via RFP amendment.

3.1.1 A complete proposal consists of three (3) separate volumes/attachments: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price.

3.1.2 Page Format. The minimum font size for the proposal pages is size 10. A cover sheet should be included in each volume’s attachment, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification and the Offeror(s) name.

3.1.3 Organization/Page Limit:

Volume Title Electronic Copy Page Limit Closing Date I Technical 1 Attachment 10

II Past Performance 1 Attachment 2 PPIs; 3 pgs. max for ea.

III Cost/Price 1 Attachment None

4.0 Evaluation Factors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Qualifications/Certifications Subfactor 2: Technical Approach/Schematics

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

4.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Technical, Cost/Price, and Past Performance are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, all subfactors are of equal importance.

4.3 The Government intends to award without discussions. However, 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. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

4.4 Factor 1 – Technical

The Government will review all proposals to determine the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the requirements of the RFP through an assessment of the risk in conjunction with strengths and deficiencies of the proposal, and assign an overall technical/risk rating to each offer, as defined in Table 1.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

4.4.1 Subfactor 1 – Qualifications

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of personnel resources and skill sets available to fulfill the SOW. This requirement is met when the proposal clearly addresses, at a minimum, the required knowledge, skills, abilities and qualifications (KSAs) and provides the relevant certifications reflected in in sections 3.0 and 4.1 of the SOW.

4.4.2 Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the capabilities required to meet the task requirements as stated in section 4.0 in the SOW. The offeror’s proposal clearly delineates how the technical approach is realistic and executable.

4.4.3 In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e. assign a strength and reduce risk, for information exceeding the minimum subfactor requirements and negative consideration, i.e. assign a weakness and increased risk, for information (or lack of) that increases the risk of a disruption in schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. An overall Technical/Risk rating (Table 1) will be assigned for the technical factor based on an assessment of strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of all subfactors. Individual ratings will not be assigned at the subfactor level. An assessment of all factors will be conducted upon completion of the price evaluation.

4.5 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate Past Performance to assess the offeror’s recent and relevant present and past work history to determine confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully preforming as proposed.

4.5.1 A Recency determination will be made for each contract reference provided (Attachment 4). Recency is defined as active contract performance during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. If a contract reference is determined recent (had some or all active performance in the three (3) years preceding the solicitation issuance date), and had active performance prior to the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, the Government may evaluate the offerors’ performance record during the entire contract period.

4.5.2 A relevancy determination of the offeror’s Present and Past Performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort being proposed by the offeror. The following relevancy definitions in Table 2 apply:

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Rating Definition

Relevant Past performance effort described in the offeror’s PPI involved sourcing qualified personnel to support similar and/or identical tasks as required in the attached SOW.

Not Relevant Past performance effort described in the offeror’s PPI did not involve sourcing qualified personnel to support similar and/or identical tasks as specified in the attached SOW.

Table 3 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s 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. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable 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 or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.

4.6 Factor 2 – Price

The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based on the total price proposed for the core task requirements. The offeror shall provide with their proposal, a complete copy of Attachment 5 –Cost/ Price Worksheet which will be used to determine the offeror’s total evaluated price.

4.6.1 The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to ensure it is fair and reasonable. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. The Government will evaluate the affordability of each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information available to the Government.

5.0 Award

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall select the vendor whose’s proposal offers the best value to the Government IAW the established criteria in this Evaluation Criteria.