PMEL Section M 29 February 2012.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PRECISION MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT LABORATORY

(PMEL)

SOURCE SELECTION

basis for awards

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, that is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation.

1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for the PMEL program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest.

1.3 Major Proposal Revisions:

If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Government will evaluate the factors and subfactors described below:

Factor One – Price

Factor Two – Technical Proposal

Subfactor One: Air Force Metrology and Calibration (AFMETCAL) Certification Plan Subfactor Two: Program Management Plan Subfactor Three: Quality Manual

Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with this section and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price.

Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

2.1.1.1. If the lowest price offeror is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance and meets all other requirements of this solicitation, award will be made to that offeror.

2.1.1.2. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.1.1.2.1. Award to the first technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.1.1.2.2. Set a competitive range that may include all of the offerors up to and including the first acceptable offeror; or

2.1.1.2.3. Continue evaluating additional offerors

2.1.1.3. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability.

2.1.1.4. Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

2.2. Factor One - Price

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness and (3) Total Evaluated Price.

Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

Price Reasonableness – The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP is the sum of the five yearly totals within the TEP worksheet. The TEP is automatically calculated as Category and G&A rates are entered for all years.

2.3. Factor Two – Technical Capability

Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The offeror’s proposal shall not simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate PWS or Technical Order language for the technical volume.

The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the following ratings:

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single subfactor is rated “Unacceptable”. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the government may hold discussions if necessary. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

2.3.1. Subfactor One: Air Force Metrology and Calibration (AFMETCAL) Certification Plan

The plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail, an established, feasible, and effective approach for obtaining and maintaining AFMETCAL certification with emphasis on the following elements:

2.3.1.1. Complies with all applicable Technical Order requirements.

2.3.1.2. Specifically addresses pre-assessment, onsite assessment and certification reviews.

2.3.1.3. Provides evidence that the offeror’s management team includes at least 3 individuals who possess consistent (at least 2 consecutive occurrences under a single requirement) and successful AFMETCAL certification experience and describes how that experience will be used to ensure AFMETCAL certification under this requirement.

2.3.2. Subfactor Two: Program Management Plan

The plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail, an established, feasible, and effective approach to lead, manage, and control all levels of the PMEL program, with emphasis on the following elements:

2.3.2.1. Complies with all applicable Technical Order requirements.

2.3.2.2. Provides evidence that the offeror has a minimum of 3 years successful experience as a prime or subcontractor managing a similar PMEL and describes how that experience will be used to ensure successful execution of this requirement.

2.3.2.3. Proposes a reasonable number of personnel to maintain required throughput times.

2.3.2.4. Proposes a reasonable mix of labor categories and experience levels to maintain the types and volume of Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) described in this requirement (PWS Appendix D).

2.3.2.5. Proposes a viable organizational structure, including clear lines of authority and roles and responsibilities of key personnel.

2.3.2.6. Is consistent with the TEP proposed for Factor One.

2.3.3. Subfactor Three: Quality Manual

The Quality Manual is acceptable when it demonstrates an understanding of the management concepts and principles governing the quality program and meets the minimum requirements outlined in T.O. 00-20-14.

2.4. Factor Three – Past Performance

2.4.1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

2.4.1.1. Recency is defined as performance less than three years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts/task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.4.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of services described in this RFP.

2.4.2. Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

2.5. CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by Section L 6.2.

2.5.1.1. The proposal shall contain evidence of adequate financial resources. Acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

2.5.1.2. The proposal shall contain evidence that the offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting in accordance with FAR 52.219-14.

2.5.1.3. Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and/or Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates should be equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for NAICS 811219. For offerors that do not possess three years of consecutive recording data, submit this information for the time period you do possess. Other comparable data from a recognized agency, such as workers compensation, insurance rates, etc, for the same time period is also acceptable.

2.5.1.4. The Mission Essential Plan, Property Management Plan, and Safety and Health Plan shall comply with applicable clauses, regulations and PWS requirements.

3. DISCUSSIONS

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; 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 Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

4. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.