Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

A. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, 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, Appendix C, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 25 May 2018. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub- factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Evaluation Factors:

1. For award purposes, offers will be evaluated based on the following factors. Award will be made to the offeror determined acceptable, in terms of technical and past performance, proposing the lowest price.

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2. Price is the most significant factor. Technical and Past Performance factors are equally significant, but both are less significant than the Price factor when combined. An award; however, will only be made to an offeror that receives “Acceptable” Technical and Past Performance factor ratings.

3. 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 Total Proposed Price.

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

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.

If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may:

· Award to the first technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance;

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

· Continue evaluating additional offerors

Under the aforementioned scenarios, it is possible that higher priced offerors will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability.

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

4. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

5. Factor 1 – Technical

a) A decision on the acceptability of each offeror's proposal shall be made. Only those offerors determined to be acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

b) Technical requirements consist solely of obtaining pre-qualification as specified in this solicitation. Pre-qualification is an express requirement of this solicitation.

(1) APPROVED SOURCE CERTIFICATION

Offerors that are identified on the APPROVED_SOURCES.pdf attachment will be evaluated as follows: Per Table 1, the government will provide an “Acceptable” FACTOR 1: TECHINCAL rating to proposals with an APPROVED SOURCE CERTIFICATION and an “Unacceptable” FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL rating to proposals without an APPROVED SOURCE CERTIFICATION.

(2) SOURCE APPROVAL REQUEST (SAR)

Offerors that are not identified on the APPROVED_SOURCES.pdf attachment will be evaluated as follows: Per Table 1, the government will issue an “Acceptable” FACTOR 1: TECHINCAL rating to proposals that present a SOURCE APPROVAL REQUEST (SAR) that fulfills all qualification requirements of the attached Source Qualification Statement to the satisfaction of the Source Selection Technical Evaluation Team.

The government will issue an “Unacceptable” FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL rating to proposals that fail to present a SOURCE APPROVAL REQUEST (SAR) that fulfills all qualification requirements of the attached Source Qualification Statement to the satisfaction of the Source Selection Technical Evaluation Team.

c) A determination of either an acceptable rating or an unacceptable rating will be applied to each offeror. The table below provides the definitions of acceptable and unacceptable to be used when evaluating technical ratings.

Table 1. Technical Ratings

6. Factor 2 – Past Performance: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

a) 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.

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

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

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.”

7. Factor 3 – Price

a) Offerors who have an acceptable rating in Technical and Past Performance shall be ranked according to price. An offeror’s total evaluated price will be determined by multiplying the best estimated quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number.

b) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine reasonableness.

(1) Price Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine if the unit prices are fair and reasonable (FAR 15.404(b)). The Air Force may require submission of information other than cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to evaluate price criteria for reasonableness.

8. Discussions: 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 decision. The lowest evaluated price, acceptable offeror’s proposal represents the best value for this acquisition and award shall be made to this offeror, subject to a positive responsibility determination. No further evaluation will be made.