LPTA_Section_M_WS_SCM.doc

SeCTION M - A&AS support

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) PROCEDURES

Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) for the C/KC-135

Weapon System Supply Chain Management (WS SCM)

1) Basis for Contract Award

a) This acquisition will utilize Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures. 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 the Instruction to Offerors (ITO) in the 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.

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

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: Mix/Availability of Skills

Subfactor 2: Technical Solution/Approach

Subfactor 3: Contract Management

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Factor 3: Past Performance Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate price for all proposals. The evaluated price will be established for each proposal based upon the total price of all CLINS combined, excluding travel. Upon establishing the evaluated price of the lowest four (4) offerors, only those proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptance. Technical evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria established in the ITO. A simple concurrence in response to stated technical requirements is not an acceptable approach and such an offer will be found non-responsive. If one (1) of these proposals is found technically unacceptable, the next lowest priced proposal will be submitted for technical acceptance review. Only those proposals 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 the non-cost factors.

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:

Each of the three subfactors will be evaluated to ensure that the technical proposal includes provisions for a fully mission capable workforce as follows:

(1) Subfactor 1: The proposed description of the mix and availability of skills meets or exceeds the requirements IAW with the PWS as follows:

(a) Ability to begin work without the need for additional on-the-job training.

(b) Proposed Contractor employee candidate demonstrates the knowledge and experience requirements identified in PWS section 1.14 and all subparagraphs.

(2) Subfactor 2: The proposed technical solution/approach meets or exceeds the requirements IAW the PWS as follows:

(a) The Contractor demonstrates an understanding of the security requirements defined in PWS paragraph 1.4, CAC eligibility.

(3) Subfactor 3: The proposed contract management approach meets or exceeds the requirements IAW the PWS as follows:

(a) Includes a method or tool that provides for efficient and timely submission of all data requirements (CDRLs), PWS paragraph 1.13.

(b) Proposed management approach for this contract to include how the Contractor plans to accomplish the effort, including the performing team members and a transition plan. The transition plan shall, at a minimum, address availability of proposed personnel as well as PWS paragraph 1.3.2, CAC eligibility timelines.

Factor 2 – Cost or Price The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes by adding the total price for all CLINs, excluding travel.

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 calculated as the sum of the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) as defined in the solicitation.

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.

Factor 3 – Past Performance The past performance evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements and will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described below:

Acceptable – Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the RFP.

Unacceptable – Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

Relevant Past Performance information should be provided. All past performance information should be contract number specific so that information can be verified. Each contract submitted shall include the contract number, the total contract dollar amount, the period of performance, work specific to the C/KC-135 weapon system or similar weapon systems, and the contract customer name and location.

7) 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, CPARS) and commercial sources. Offerors will not be penalized if no past performance information is available. Past performance will either be acceptable or unacceptable. Offerors rated as acceptable equals a determination of responsibility. Offerors rated as unacceptable equals a determination of non-responsibility. Any unacceptable rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) 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.

8) 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 Source Selection (SS) decision. If a FPR is issued, offeror responses to ENs must be included in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation.

9) 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 Criteria for Award, the Evaluation Criteria will take precedence.