EvaluationCriteria2011.docx

ATTACHMENT 3 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ATTACHMENT 3 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.215-1

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1) Basis for Contract Award

a) This acquisition will utilize Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated cost or price and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.215-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation). The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

b) While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) 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) Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

3) Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable or if the amount of corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

4) Rejection of Unreasonable Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

5) Competitive Range Determination During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

6) Evaluation Factors

a) Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Management Approach

Subfactor 5: Key Personnel Engineer Factor 2: Cost/Price

b) Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions will be considered for award. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1 Technical and Factor 3 – Past Performace.

7) Factor 1 – Technical Each proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability, based on the criteria listed below. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must meet all the criteria listed below. Failure to meet any criteria will result in an unacceptable technical rating. The technical ratings are defined as follows:

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed approach for each of the criteria listed below. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instructions to Offerors, FAR 52.212-1. The minimum requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential criteria:

a) The proposed staffing meets qualifications and experience in accordance with PWS 3.2.3 (Program Manager and Engineer)

b) Plan to manage the Quality PLM IPB cleansing requirements in accordance with PWS 2.1.7.

8) Factor 2 – Cost or Price The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes by adding the total price for basic requirements.

a) Total Evaluated Price. Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal. Reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will be the offerors total proposed price for contract line item number (CLIN) 0001. No other pricing should be submitted except on CLIN 0001. The offeror should propose a total price for the amount of records to be cleansed as listed on CLIN 0001. CLIN 0001 price should be all inclusive of any deliverables requested in the Performance Work Statement. CLIN 0002 is Not Separately Priced and should be included in the offerors proposed price per record for CLIN 0001. CLIN 0003 is for travel and will be a Cost Reimbursable CLIN which will not be evaluated by the Government so no prices should be proposed by the offeror.

b) Unreasonably Low Costs or Prices. Unreasonably low proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unreasonable proposal.

c) Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

9) Determination of Contractor Responsibility.

To be eligible for award, an offeror must be determined responsible. A Determination of Contractor Responsibility will be conducted in accordance with FAR 9.1. Past performance information may be gathered from both Government (such as PPIRS, MOCAS, CPARS) and commercial sources. Offerors will not be penalized if no past performance information is available. Past performance will either be satisfactory, neutral, or unsatisfactory. Offerors rated as satisfactory or neutral equals a determination of responsibility. Offerors rated as unsatisfactory equals a determination of non-responsibility. Any unsatisfactory rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b) and 19.6 for resolution. An offeror who receives a determination of non-responsibility will not be eligible to receive the contract award.

10) Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. 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 SS decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to ENs Notices must be included in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation.

11) Solicitation Requirements – Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and mission requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. In the case that a discrepancy exists between the ITO and the Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Addendum to FAR 52.215-1 will take precedence.