Attachment_3_-_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

FA8601-17-R-0057

Attachment 3

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. The Government will use FAR Part 13 Simplified Acquisition Procedures 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. All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, 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; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated

Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received.

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. FACTOR 1- Technical: Proposal must clearly demonstrate that the offeror is capable of meeting all of the performance standards specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

SUBFACTOR 1 – QCP - PWS 1.1-1.6

Description: This factor will evaluate the offeror’s Quality Control Plan for ensuring repair on

Safety Valves will be consistently performed in accordance with (IAW) the requirements of the

Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed QCP that is likely to ensure that performance will be IAW the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. A description of the offeror’s scheduling procedures IAW with the PWS.

2. Provide documentation of certification of capacity verification. (code symbol stamp)

SUBFACTOR 2 – REPORTS - PWS 1.7

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide detail reports on each safety valve IAW the PWS

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a sample report to include all details listed in PWS.

b. FACTOR 2 - 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 Appendix

1—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 15.404-1(b) 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 2006 for the base performance period and option periods I through II; 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 2001 through 2006), 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 II). 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:

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

(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. 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.