REVISED_Section M_PCCIE_15June2023_Final.pdf

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) PROCESS

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) five-year contract with one five-year option for Emergency Maintenance (EM) and Preventative Maintenance (PM) for Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) systems and associated equipment/infrastructure as a result of this solicitation.

A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Cross-Reference Matrix: The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents (Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), Purchase Description (PD), etc.), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those PWS requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor 1: Requirements Compliance

This subfactor is met when the offeror sufficiently provides Support Agreement’s from the Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) maintenance organizations of Eaton and Vertiv that meet the requirements stated IAW PWS paragraph 7.

Subfactor 2: Program Management

This subfactor is met when the offeror sufficiently demonstrates:

A. Clear delineation of administration roles and responsibilities for this contract’s management to include key personnel: prime contractor’s Program Manager, the prime contractor’s Contracts Manager, the prime contractor’s Service Scheduler.

B. An effective approach and process for worldwide support capability that meets PWS requirements for duration and timeline, dispatch, communication, parts availability, and equipment restoration for systems with an example for:

a. One CONUS location; and

b. One and OCONUS (overseas) U.S. Base locations at any of the following sites: Kadena AB, Japan; Osan AB, Korea; Ramstein AB, Germany; Diego Garcia Atoll; or British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

C. An effective process once a failed UPS system has been identified, (EM situation) from the initial call notification through resolution.

D. An effective process once a failed UPS system has been identified (EM situation) when notified on a weekend or outside of normal office duty hours.

Subfactor 3: Reporting Activities

This subfactor is met when the offeror sufficiently demonstrates an effective process for performing inventory reporting, documentation, and submittal IAW PWS in paragraph 12.4.1, 15.8.

Subfactor 4: Awardable Task

This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately demonstrates an effective approach including step-by-step processes required to:

A. Perform:

a. Scheduling Maintenance

b. Preventative Maintenance Inspection (PMI)

c. Conducting inventory; and

d. Closing maintenance actions

aa. Using the UPS OEM on UPS systems at each of the following locations at Buckley SFB, CO:

i. In Bldg. 442 (Tech Side)

1. Eaton, Model 9395 Serial Numbers: EJ384BAA07, EJ384BAA04, EJ384BAA02, EJ384BAA03

ii. In Bldg. 442 (Utility Side)

1. Eaton, Model 93PM Serial Numbers: EK481UXX03, EK481UXX02, EK481UXX01, EK474UXX01

iii. In Bldg. 730

1. Eaton, Model 9390 Serial Numbers: EA463CAA12, EA465CAA07

iv. In Bldg. 1028

1. Liebert, Model: 38SA060A0A00 Serial Number: 2101200662127020000

bb. Using a third-party provider for EM/PM services at each of the following locations at Buckley

SFB, CO:

i. In Bldg. 433

1. Liebert, NXL 40, Model: 40S400A0AAA32A Serial Numbers: D11C240014, D11C240015, D11D240002, D11D240003

ii. In Bldg. 444

1. Liebert, eXM Model: 47SA030DACG0S03, UPS SN: M18LZB0011

iii. In Bldg. 445

1. Liebert, eXM Model: 47SA030DACG0S03, UPS SN: M18LZB0012

iv. In Bldg. 731

1. Eaton, Model: 9155, UPS SN: BG236FBB06

v. In Bldg. 1030

1. Liebert, Model: eXM Model: 51SA050BAA00S03, UPS SN: M18LUS0009

Subfactor 5: Sample Task

This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately demonstrates an effective approach for accomplishing the following Sustainment Activities:

1. AC/DC capacitor replacement:

a. Scheduling and performing a full AC/DC capacitor replacement with service report utilizing the

OEM, on the following systems listed below at Buckley SFB, CO:

v. In Bldg. 433

1. Liebert, NXL 40, Model: 40S400A0AAA32A Serial Numbers: D11C240014

vi. In Bldg. 442 (Utility Side)

2. Eaton, Model 93PM, Serial Number: EK481UXX03

2. UPS battery replacement

a. Scheduling and performing a full UPS battery replacement with service report utilizing a third-party provider, on the following system listed below at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 1028:

v. Liebert, Model: 38SA060A0A00 Serial Number: 2101200662127020000

3. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Cost/Price Factor

1. Cost or Pricing information All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal and Contract Documentation sections. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2. Reasonableness The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing the Price List, and Fixed Price TEP Worksheets. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. At the sole discretion of the Government, additional Cost/Price analysis techniques may or may not be used to further validate price reasonableness.

If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR Subpart 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

3. Balance Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the unit prices are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. An offeror’s pricing proposal is unbalanced if one or more portions of the TEP are significantly less or greater, in relative terms, and a natural progression does not follow. A proposal that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Approved Accounting System As portions of the work issued under this contract will be other than fixed price the offeror shall have a Government approved accounting system. Failure to obtain Government approval of all necessary accounting systems may result in the offeror being found ineligible for award.

5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) TEP – The TEP is the sum of pricing totals as specified below. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation of proposals and will be a consideration in the award decision. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only and does not constitute a promise by the Government as to work to be performed or ceiling amount for contract award. However, the awardee will be bound to the labor rates and pricing lists proposed in the Pricing Worksheets.

The TEP calculation for this acquisition will be established by adding together two separate components from the List of Documents, Exhibits, and other Attachments:

1. Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2034 pricing worksheets

2. Fixed Price Labor Hour Rates applied to Government Notional Hours

The first component of the TEP will represent the majority of the contract requirements and the rates will be binding for the duration of the contract. Totals for each FY will be calculated by selecting random locations and unit types for each tab for CLIN 0001 – 0005. FY totals will then be combined together to represent a total value for each individual CLIN. The second component of the TEP will consist of firm-fixed fully-loaded labor hour rates multiplied by the government generated notional hours for CLIN 0006 – 0007. An undisclosed number of cells will be selected and remain consistent along all vendors and calculated in each tab. The sum of all CLINs will represent the total evaluated price.

Refer to the instructions tab when completing the Pricing Worksheets. All Offerors will be evaluated on the same basis and the Government will apply the offeror’s proposed amounts to the applicable locations, unit types, and multipliers in calculating the TEP. Details of this method and Government developed notional hours/quantities will not be revealed to the offeror, but the method will be applied consistently and equally to each offer.

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD