Evaluation_Factor_with_Prior_Experience_for_FA8601-16-T-0380.pdf

FA8601-16-T-0380

Attachment 2

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 determined to be fair and reasonable.

The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) whether proposed prices are determined to be fair and reasonable.

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: Offer must clearly demonstrate that the offeror is capable of meeting the requirements of the statement of work (SOW) with respect to:

(1) Prior Experience: Describe the mail metering equipment lease, meter lease, and software services the offeror is currently providing or has provided within the past five years of the issue date of the solicitation.

Measure of Merit: Prior experience is acceptable when:

- Services/commodities are currently being provided or have been provided on at least 1 contract within the past five years or the issue date of the solicitation; and

- The mail metering equipment lease, meter lease, and software is/was comparable to that described in paragraphs 2.0 through 3.4.2 of the Statement of Work (SOW); and

- Services are/were provided to mail centers comparable to the Official Mail Center.

(2) Implementation: Offerors shall submit a plan showing how offeror intends to conduct the installation, training, and maintenance of the equipment and software to be used in accordance with paragraphs 2.0 through 3.4.2 of the SOW.

Measure of Merit: Implementation Plan is acceptable when:

- Submitted plan shows how offeror will complete installation and training of mail meter equipment and software by trained technicians in accordance with section 2.0 of the SOW.

- Submitted plan shows how offeror will complete maintenance, repairs, and software updates in accordance with section 3.3 of the SOW.

- Submitted plan shows how offeror will respond to service calls for equipment/software errors, malfunctions, or failure in accordance with paragraphs 3.3.2 through 3.3.3 of the

SOW.

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’s Additional Instruction to Offerors (Attachment 1).

(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 4001 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), 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).

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

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 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.