Section_M_(02_June_14).pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 02 June 2014

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

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 offeror who is rated “acceptable” in Factor 1 Technical, has 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 Section L 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 (CO).

1.1.1. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Team (SST) 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.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2. 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.

1.3. 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 and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153 file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. 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.

1.6. 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 FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. 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 Section L- Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1.1. 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: Daily Services Factor 2: Price

2.1.2. 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, who has been determined responsible IAW para 2.4 below, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation).

2.2. 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:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Daily Services

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Daily Services approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a) An approach to meet the scheduled services and daily services for all machines identified in Appendix A and Appendix A-1, which ensures the requirements of PWS 1.3, 1.4, 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 are met.

2.3. Factor 2 –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) reasonableness, (2) unbalanced pricing, and

(3) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

2.3.2. Unbalanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.3.3. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.3.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions.

Table1 below will demonstrate the TEP calculation methodology. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable Offerors. This TEP is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided below in Table 1.

The TEP will be calculated for a thirty (30) day Phase-in Period, eleven (11) month Base Period, two 1-year Option Periods and a six (6) month Extension Period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract”. The six-month extension of services prices will be based on the proposed Option II unit pricing.

The six-month extension of services under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six (6) month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Option II Period and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

Table 1

CLIN Calculation Methodology

0001 Phase-In Proposed unit price to equal evaluated total. Evaluated total for Phase-In equals total for CLIN 0001.

0002 (Basic, Coolant Recycling Services CMXG) 0005 (Basic, Coolant Recycling Services PMXG)

Proposed unit price multiplied by eleven (11) months equals the Base

1002 (Option I, Coolant Recycling Services CMXG) 1005 (Option I, Coolant Recycling Services PMXG) 2002 (Option II, Coolant Recycling Services CMXG) 2005 (Option II, Coolant Recycling Services PMXG)

Period evaluated total. Proposed unit price multiplied by twelve (12) months equals the Option Period price for Options I through II.

Proposed unit price of Option II multiplied by six (6) months equals the period evaluated total for the Extension Period.

0003 (Basic, Remedial Maintenance CMXG) 0006 (Basic, Remedial Maintenance PMXG) 1003 (Option I, Remedial Maintenance CMXG) 1006 (Option I, Remedial Maintenance PMXG) 2003 (Option II, Remedial Maintenance CMXG) 2006 (Option II, Remedial Maintenance PMXG)

The Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) of hours identified within each Remedial Maintenance CLIN multiplied by the proposed hourly rate equals the evaluated total for the eleven (11) month Base Period CLINs and multiplied by twelve (12) month periods for Option I and Option II CLINs. The BEQ of hours for Option II divided by two (2) then multiplied by the proposed hourly rate for Option II equals the evaluated total for the six month Extension Period.

0004 (Basic, Contractor Acquired Property CMXG) 0007 (Basic, Contractor Acquired Property PMXG) 1004 (Option I, Contractor Acquired Property CMXG) 1007 (Option I, Contractor Acquired Property PMXG) 2004 (Option II, Contractor Acquired Property CMXG) 2007 (Option II, Contractor Acquired Property PMXG)

Contractor Acquired Property CLINS will not be included in the TEP as funding for these CLINs will be determined by the Government at the time of award or at the exercising of an option.

2.4. 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.