Atch 3 Section M Basis for Contract Award.pdf

SECTION M – BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1. All proposals timely received will be evaluated in two (2) separate areas:

- Mission Capability

- Price

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented, to make a best value award decision. 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, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

The application of the LPTA technique in the contract award selection and approval process is as follows:

a. Initially, the Government shall evaluate the Mission Capability Proposals on a pass/fail basis. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of: Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being

Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions/clarifications, will be considered for award. All technically acceptable proposals are considered equal.

b. All technically acceptable offerors will then be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the total evaluated price. Cost/Price will be evaluated for realism and reasonableness.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to reject proposals priced either so unrealistically high, or so unrealistically low, as to indicate an inherent lack of understanding of the requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

c. At this point, the offeror with the lowest evaluated price represents the best value for this acquisition and award shall be made to this offeror, subject to a positive responsibility determination.

d. The Government intends to award one contract for the performance of annual inspection of all safety valves. However the Government reserves the right to award one or no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

e. The Government anticipates making award(s) without conducting discussions.

Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary by the Source Selection Authority.

2. MISSION CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Mission Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of:

(1) Acceptable: The Mission Capability Proposal meets all the minimum mandatory Mission Capability Proposal requirements in the solicitation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of exchanges will be considered for award.

(2) Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable: The Mission Capability

Proposal does not meet some of the minimum mandatory Technical Proposal requirements in the http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P25_3805 solicitation; however, there is reason to believe that through exchanges an acceptable Mission

Capability Proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered

“unacceptable”.

(3) Unacceptable: The Mission Capability Proposal substantially fails to meet the minimum mandatory Mission Capability Proposal requirements in the solicitation. Mission

Capability Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel will use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals.

In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the Government will use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWS as applied specifically to each factor/subfactor listed below.

c. The following specific factors and subfactors will be evaluated in the Mission

Capability Proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable will render the entire

Mission Capability Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Mission Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

(1.) SUBFACTOR 1: An acceptable rating will be achieved when offerors submit adequate documentation to verify they are licensed by Synergistics

(2.) SUBFACTOR 2: An acceptable rating will be achieved when offerors submit adequate documentation to verify their employees have completed applicable maintenance training courses and are certified to perform maintenance on Synergistics systems.

(3.) SUBFACTOR 3: An acceptable rating will be achieved when offerors’ emergency response plans demonstrate their ability to respond to emergency calls within the time limitations outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

(4.) SUBFACTOR 4: An acceptable rating will be achieved when offerors’ non-emergency response plans demonstrate their ability to respond to calls within the time limitations outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

(5.) SUBFACTOR 5: An acceptable rating will be achieved when offerors provide adequate documentation to show that employees working under this contract have successfully passed National Agency Checks (NACs).

(6.) SUBFACTOR 6: An acceptable rating is met when a Purchasing Plan is submitted with proposal and includes the requirements listed in the PWS at Section IV.

e. The above specific technical factors/subfactors will be evaluated in the Technical

Proposal. Any subfactor judged unacceptable may render the entire Technical Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is “unacceptable”, the Contracting

Officer shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate the basis for the determination.

3. PRICE:

a. An offeror’s proposal price is the sum of all line items (Base Period plus Options I through IV) as identified in the solicitation. Price will be a factor in the Contracting Officer’s decision. The basis of the proposed price must be compatible with all other elements of the proposal. No advantage will accrue to an offeror who submits an unrealistically low price proposal. Such a proposal may be viewed as indicative of a lack of understanding of the

Government’s desired objective.

b. Each offeror shall propose firm, fixed prices. Since discussions are not contemplated, the offeror should submit their best price upon initial submission of the proposal. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award by adding the total price for all requirements (Base

Period and all options). The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

c. Reasonableness will be assessed by performing a price analysis, comparing the prices proposed with other prices received and other pricing information that the Government may obtain internally or through market research. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. The Government reserves the right to request other than cost or pricing data if cost analysis is deemed necessary.

d. Unrealistically low proposed costs or prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offer does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

e. No advantage will accrue to an offeror who submits an unrealistically low price proposal. Such a proposal may be viewed as lacking understanding of the Government’s desired objective and may not be considered for award.

f. Since discussions are not contemplated, the offeror should submit his best price upon initial submission of the proposal.