RFP Attachment 2 Section M-900.pdf

RFP FA8532-20-R-0004

RFP ATTACHMENT 2

SECTION M- PROVISION – EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: Technically Acceptable source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 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 multiple contracts as a result of this solicitation. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by offeror(s). In accordance with Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple-Award Task- or Delivery-Order Contracts, the PCO has waived the cost/price evaluation as each and all qualifying offerors will receive an award. A qualifying offeror is one that is deemed to be responsible, technically acceptable and whose past performance is rated acceptable.

Cost/Price will be evaluated at the order level. Past performance of critical subcontractors may be evaluated at the order level. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in paragraph II. below.

Three (3) separate groups of awardees are anticipated; allowing an offeror to propose to either Group A, or Group B, or Group C or any combination of Groups A, B, and C. If an offeror proposes to Groups A, B, and C, the offeror may be awarded one, two, or all three contracts. The single proposal shall differentiate between the Groups so that the proposal includes a Section A for Group A, Section B for Group B, and Section C for Group C. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one (1) proposal from each offeror.

Award will be made to the qualifying offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section M, paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation:

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.

2. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical Factor II. Past Performance

B. Volume I, Completed RFP/Technical Factor

1. General:

Each offeror’s Volume I, Completed RFP/Technical Factor proposal shall be evaluated based on the Offeror’s proposal indicating an acceptance of all the terms and Conditions of the RFP including all RFP attachments. At a minimum, the proposal consists of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating the following:

DRAFT

Any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale.

Any assumptions the offeror’s proposal is submitted with Small Business status/categories Company primary and alternate points of contact with email/phone and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company CAGE Code, DUNS number Teaming arrangement information including the roles of team members, dates of agreement, and a copy of the signed joint venture agreement (if applicable).

All “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required Identification of group or group(s) (A, B, or C or any combination of) offeror is proposing to

If ENs are identified, the Government will provide them to the offeror prior to oral presentations/discussions. The offeror shall address any ENs identified for Volume I, Completed RFP/Technical Factor, within the oral presentations/discussions. There are slides reserved for ENs in RFP Attachment 3 Oral Presentations/Discussions Slide Deck Template. The offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s 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.

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.

C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ 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 and joint venture members’ 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. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years, with at least one year of performance history, from the issuance date of this solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), 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 may 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.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors 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 past performance evaluation 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.

c) Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ 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.

d) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL

NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total period of performance and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Period of Performance and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope.

These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Period of Performance and Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: 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 submitted contracts (up to a total of three (3) submitted efforts). 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:

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant present/past performance efforts must include at least one (1) of the following:

o Providing sourcing activities for procurement of materials, parts, and/or end items on behalf of the

Department of Defense (DoD) and/or Foreign Military Sales (FMS) o Facilitated inspection and acceptance of materials, parts, and/or end items on behalf of the DoD and/or FMS o Accomplished shipments of materials, parts, and/or end item to DoD locations. Must include shipments both within the Continental United States (CONUS) and outside the Continental United States (OCONUS).

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

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantity sourced, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract may be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets similar technical complexities, but involves little or none of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a relevancy rating of NOT RELEVANT will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Strategic Replenishment Contract. They are as follows:

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

Duration of Time: 10 Years is expected for this contract; however, for purposes of relevancy, efforts shall demonstrate a minimum of one (1) year of performance Type of Data Deliverables: Test Plans, Test Procedures, Test Reports, Monthly Status Reports, Department of

Defense (military style) technical data package creation (technical orders/manuals/commercial manuals) are expected for this contract. However, for purposes of relevancy, efforts shall demonstrate submittal of any type of data deliverables.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance ratings are excerpted below. In order to be eligible for an acceptable rating, the offeror’s past performance record in total shall demonstrate performance in all three areas (i.e., sourcing activities, inspection and acceptance, and shipments) within the relevancy definition. An offeror can demonstrate performance of all three relevancy areas together in one contract or by the total performance record of two or three contracts. If an offeror does not demonstrate all three relevancy areas, an unacceptable rating will be assigned.

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method:

Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a 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 (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns,. That is, on the up to three (3) 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. If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member 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.