ATTACHMENT_4__RFP_CPI_27_Jul_2016.pdf

ATTACHMENT 4

52.212-2 -- EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL

ITEMS (Oct 2014) IAW FAR PART 12.602(a)

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Air Force Medical Support Agency

Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) Support Service

Note to Offerors: This RFP requests that Offerors provide a technical approach and key highlights from a maximum of three (3) past performance efforts similar in scope, magnitude and complexity as that required by AFMSA. Please follow instructions and guidance below.

METHODOLOGY AND WEIGHTS:

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than, cost or price considerations.

By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be considered equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Price

Factor 2: Technical

Subfactor 1: Subject Knowledge

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 1: Price An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B (Attachment 1) by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. An assessment of price reasonableness will be performed on the total evaluated price using techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b), Price analysis. The offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in the Instructions to Offerors and the Addendum to 52.212-1 of the solicitation. Price analysis techniques may include a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison with other contract prices for similar services, and/or a comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Cost Estimate. The burden of proof for price credibility rests solely with the Offeror.

Factor 2: Technical The government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the lowest priced offerors on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Subject Knowledge

Description: This subfactor evaluates offeror’s approach demonstrating the offeror’s knowledge, expertise, and in depth experience of the tasks identified in PWS in 2.1 and 2.2 and how the offeror intends to leverage this knowledge, expertise and experience to provide the best possible service to the Government.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal describes how the offeror’s approach benefits the Government from the offeror’s knowledge, experience, and expertise of the subject matter with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance1.

Factor 3: Past Performance A. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on the lowest priced offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment.

B. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving CPI that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance.

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

C. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater

1 Low risk has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate risk can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

D. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in

Attachment 4. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) 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 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. 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.