Evaluation_Factors_Cable_TV_10_Feb_14.pdf

FA8601-14-R-0018

Attachment 3

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. The Government will use FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures, as authorized by FAR 13.5—Test Program for Certain Commercial Items vs. FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical and Price, as expounded below.

A proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the Technical factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable.” The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical evaluation factor; (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable; and (4) is able to secure a franchise agreement with Wright-Patterson Air Force Base per the instructions in the Additional Instructions to Offerors. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received, (2) the pricing of proposals received, and (3) the ability of an otherwise successful offeror to secure a franchise agreement.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

a. Technical:

(1) Prior Experience: Describe the cable TV and Broad Band (BB) services the offeror is currently providing or has provided within the past three years of the issue date of the solicitation Measure of Merit: Prior experience is acceptable when:

- Services are currently being provided or have been provided within the past three years or the issue date of the solicitation; and

- The channel line-up and programming is/was comparable to that described in paragraphs 1.3 through 1.11 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS); and

- Services are/were provided to an area comparable to the size of that of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB); and

- BB speeds are/were comparable to speeds specified in paragraph 1.1 of the PWS; and

- Services are/were provided to a number of subscribers comparable to the number of subscribers on WPAFB

(2) Implementation Plan Describe your approach for providing Cable TV and Broad Band services to all of the buildings listed in Appendix A of the Performance Work Statement (1) within 10 calendar days after receipt of a task order (AROTO) for these services using existing cables and (2) within 45 calendar days if new cable is required. Include in your approach for each scenario a schedule that shows proposed manpower, the sequence of events from receipt of task order to completion, and the specific dates upon which required services will be operation in each facility.

Measure of Merit: The implementation plan is acceptable when:

- Plan consists of two parts—one specifically addressing use of existing cable and one specifically addressing use of new cable

- Plan includes proposed manpower to be used

- Plan includes a sequence of events from receipt of task order to completion

- Plan includes dates upon which required services will be operation in each facility

- Plan in the Government’s judgment is workable and likely to ensure required services will be available within 10 calendar days AROTO if existing cable is used and 45 calendar days AROTO if new cable is required.

(3) Subcontracting Plan: Submit a subcontracting plan as described in the clauses at FAR

52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DEVIATION 2013-O0014) and DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) (Deviation 2013- O0014). NOTE: This requirement applies only to other than small business concerns in relation to NAICS Code 515210. Ensure that data in SAM reflects the offeror’s size status in relation to NAICS 515210.

Measure of Merit: The subcontracting plan is acceptable when it includes all of the content prescribed in paragraph (d) of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DEVIATION 2013-O0014) and DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) (Deviation 2013-O0014).

b. Price: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Attachment 2—Additional Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as:

(i) The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs 0001 through 4021 for the base performance period and option periods I through IV; and

(ii) To account for the maximum six-month extension possible under the clause at

FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the Government will take the proposed price of the final option period (CLINS 4001 through 4021), prorate it to a six-month value, and add that amount to the sum of all CLINS (base performance period and option periods I through IV). The resulting amount will be the TEP. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(iii) Attachment 1, Pricing Exhibit will be incorporated into the awarded contract.

The spreadsheet below illustrates calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. The spreadsheet is provided for illustration purposes only. Prices reflected in the spreadsheet are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this solicitation or any other solicitation for the same or similar requirements.

2. Evaluation Process:

a. The Government will initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

b. If pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the

Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, and in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable; the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

c. For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal will be considered final. The entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

d. For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

3. Apparent Successful Offeror and Franchise Agreement:

a. The offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical evaluation factor; (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable will be the apparent successful offeror.

PERIOD OF

PERFORMANCE

(POP)

POP

LENGTH CLINS

NOTIONAL

PROPOSED

PRICE

Base 12 Months 0001 ‐ 0020 $100,000.00

Option I 12 Months 1001 ‐ 1020 $103,000.00

Option II 12 Months 2001 ‐ 2020 $106,090.00

Option III 12 Months 3001 ‐ 3020 $109,272.70

Option IV 12 Months 4001 ‐ 4020 $112,550.88

Total Proposed Price for Base Period & Options I through IV $530,913.58

Evaluted Value of Maximum 6‐Month Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217‐8 $56,275.44

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) $587,189.02

b. The apparent successful offeror must apply for a franchise agreement in accordance with the instructions provided in the Additional Instructions to Offerors. If the apparent successful offeror is unable to secure a franchise agreement, that offeror is ineligible for award and will be eliminated from the competition.

c. The subsequent apparent successful offeror will be the offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical evaluation factor; (3) that submits the proposal with the next lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The subsequent apparent successful offeror must apply for a franchise agreement in accordance with the instructions provided in the Additional Instructions to Offerors. If the subsequent apparent successful offeror is unable to secure a franchise agreement, that offeror is ineligible for award and will be eliminated from the competition. This process will continue until an apparent successful offeror is able to obtain a franchise agreement.

4. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.