Attachment M.pdf

ATTACHMENT M

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

A. This acquisition will utilize the Performance/Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented to include AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.305, paragraphs 5.5.2 and 5.6.2.1, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance being considered more important than 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. The Government intends to make an award without discussions. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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 B below.

B. The PPT evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

(1) Performance. The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’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 three (3) years. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present/past performance will be made. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply:

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance efforts involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very relevant efforts must include 3 of the 3 critical tasks (i.e., 1. Program, Logistics & Item Managerment Support 2. Technical Support and 3.

Engineering & Configuration Management Support) in support of missiles and weapons.

RELEVANT: Present/past performance efforts involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must include at least 2 of the 3 critical tasks (i.e., 1. Technical Support and 2. Engineering & Configuration Management Support) in support of missiles and weapons.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance efforts involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance efforts did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Magnitude of effort and complexities not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to skill mixes, length of effort, complexity of data deliverables, etc.

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

(i). The Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) 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 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.

(ii). Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror 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 offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(iii). The evaluation of the offeror’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 that are newly formed entities 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 Performance Confidence Assessment Group will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror.

(iv). The Government may consider an offeror’s contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror’s 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 more accurately reflect a higher relevancy rating. In this situation, work performed in aggregate will be considered in the assignment of a confidence assessment rating.

As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, a confidence assessment rating will be made. The following performance confidence assessment ratings apply:

Rating Definition

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no 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 the extent to which the offeror’s (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns on the efforts submitted for evaluation. That is, did the offeror carry out the policy of the United States in the awarding of 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, including small business concerns.

(2) Cost/Price Proposal.

Cost/Price Proposal: 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:

(a.) 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.

(b.) Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items including the Basic and Options, is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers 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. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(c.) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated as follows:

The TEP will be based upon the sum of all Clins (including all options). The man month rate (MM) proposed will be multiplied by the applicable Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) for that Labor Category Clin. Cost Reimbursment Clins (0018-Travel, 0019-Contractor Acquired Material (CAP)) will not be included in the TEP. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated for evaluation purposes only.

Note: Evaluation of BEQ and options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options nor shall it obligate the Government to order the BEQs stated.