Evaluation_Basis_for_Award.pdf

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.Basis for Contract Award.

A. This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance approximately equal to cost/price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph 2 below. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

B. 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.

C. The submitted Total Incident Case Rate (TICR)/Days Away Restricted Transfer (DART) rates or other comparable rates for the past three (3) calendar years ending with the calendar year immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued, shall be compared to the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for the specific SIC or NAICS code identified on the face page of this solicitation. Failure by the applicable offeror/joint venture partner(s) to submit TICR/DART or other comparable rates will result in the offeror being considered failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

2. Proposal Evaluation. The Tradeoff source selection evaluation process will be accomplished as follows.

A. Past Performance Factor. The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture member’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture member’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past four (4) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume II of its proposal:

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires such as

(1) Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Disposal for an estimated population of at least 14,000,

(2) An average monthly quantity of 4,400 or more routine container collections (includes any/all types of containers, dumpsters, roll-offs, compactors, and litter cans, and

(3) Involves most of these types of refuse: municipal solid waste, food waste, recyclable cardboard, yard and wood waste, tobacco waste, industrial waste to include sawdust, lead based paint cans, asbestos containing materials, jet fuel foam, and sheet metal waste (garnet).

(The above referenced quantities of population (14,000) and average monthly container collections (4,400) represent 80% of the approximate population and workload at Robins AFB.)

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires such as

(1) Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Disposal for an estimated population of at least 10,800,

(2) An average monthly quantity of 3,300 or more routine container collections (includes any/all types of containers, dumpsters, roll-offs, compactors, and litter cans), and

(3) Involves most of these types of refuse: municipal solid waste, food waste, recyclable cardboard, yard and wood waste, tobacco waste, industrial waste to include sawdust, lead based paint cans, asbestos containing materials, jet fuel foam, and sheet metal waste (garnet).

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires such as

(1) Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Disposal for an estimated population of at least 7,200,

(2) An average monthly quantity of 2,200 or more routine container collections (includes any/all types of containers, dumpsters, roll-offs, compactors, and litter cans), and

(3) Involves most of these types of refuse: municipal solid waste, food waste, recyclable cardboard, yard and wood waste, tobacco waste, industrial waste to include sawdust, lead based paint cans, asbestos containing materials, jet fuel foam, and sheet metal waste (garnet).

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to quantity services, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical magnitude of effort and complexities, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

(i). The Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(ii). Offerors/joint venture members shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(iii). The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. For offerors/joint venture members that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past four (4) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

(iv). The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture member’s contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence assessment rating, should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s three (3) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment for the offeror. A joint venture member’s three (3) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. In this situation, work performed in aggregate will be considered and reflected in the assignment of a confidence assessment rating for the offeror/joint venture member as a whole.

As the result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past/Present Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

Unknown Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s (Neutral) performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

(v). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture member’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses). If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror’s/joint venture member’s and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

B. Cost/Price Proposal Factor. The offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Balance, and a Total Evaluated Price will be calculated in accordance with the following:

Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may 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 in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

Balance: Unbalanced Pricing Exists When, Despite an Acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the Price of One or More Contract Line Items is Significantly Overstated or Understated due to an illogical progression of unit prices from program year to program year, unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or front-loading CLINs that do not represent the true cost of that CLIN. The definition of "Front-Loading" is to concentrate costs in an early period. Front-Loading will be viewed as materially unbalanced since acceptance of the proposal would result in an advance payment. The Government will analyze the proposed prices to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror's response to the pricing structure in the Schedule. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing; offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP of each proposal. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and proposals shall be evaluated for award purposes based upon the TEP for the basic and option periods.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror with the lowest total evaluated price whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions and representation and certifications.

The TEP attachment (in Section J) shall be used by offerors to propose the $/Unit Price and $/Yr listed in the basic year and each option years. The Government has identified the number of trash cans, number of pickups, and total pickups per year. The TEP will be calculated by multiplying the Estimated Annual Quantity by the offeror’s proposed $/Unit Price. The sum of the evaluated prices for each line item (including the basic and option periods) will represent the Total Evaluated Price. Offeror’s are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. NOTE: The TEP attachment will take precedence over Section B.