Attachment_2_-_Evaluation_Factors.docx

FA8601-19-R-A042

Attachment 2

EVALUATION FACTORS

26 Jun 2019

1. The Government will use FAR 12.602 Streamlined Evaluation of Offers vs. FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The Government will award to the offeror with the lowest evaluated price among those that are technically acceptable and have an acceptable record of past performance. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon the quality of offers received and whether proposed prices are fair and reasonable. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical, Past Performance and Price, as expounded below.

(a) All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, either the Technical or Past Performance 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 both the Technical and Past Performance evaluation factors; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest TEP, provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is reasonable.

(b) If the lowest TEP, technically acceptable offeror is a Small Business, and is determined to have an unacceptable past performance rating, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) and FAR subpart 19.6. If a Certificate of Competency is issued by the Small Business Administration, the offeror will be eligible for award. However, if a Certificate of Competency is not issued by the Small Business Administration, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

(c) Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

(d) 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. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

(e) If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the award decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

(f) Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the proposal evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(g) 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 whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1 - Technical: Pursuant to evaluation of all subfactors hereunder, the Technical factor will receive and overall rating of either “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” using the rating and descriptions in the table below: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is cautioned that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

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

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1- Quality Control Plan (QCP) (PWS Part III para. 5)

Description: This subfactor will assess the offeror’s approach for ensuring performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror proposed QCP demonstrates a comprehensive and sound approach to quality assurance in accordance with (IAW) the standards of the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Subfactor 2: Daily Minimum Workload Requirement (PWS Part I, para. 4, Part III, and Attachment 7) Description: This subfactor will assess the offeror’s ability to meet the Minimum Daily Workload Requirements identified in the PWS and Attachment 7 – Minimum Daily Workload Requirements.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates a clear and complete understanding of the Minimum Daily Workload Requirements.

FACTOR 2 - Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described in the below table.

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. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

There are two aspects of the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/recent record of performance is relevant to the effort to be acquired. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is the “Performance Quality Assessment” to determine how well the contractor performed on present/recent relevant efforts. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past __5__ years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those efforts relate to the Technical subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). The Government will consider as relevant, contracts that involve performance of services for any of the following tasks, in relation to personal goods: packing, crating, containerization, shipping, and storage. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). (For solicitations that include FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, or that involve bundling with a significant opportunity for subcontracting, add the following:)

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Satisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is not substantially meeting (or did not substantially meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, proposals will receive a final Past Performance rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

FACTOR 3 Price: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

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.

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 prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

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 Items 1AA through 35 (reference Pricing Matrix); 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 year, prorate it to a six-month value, and add that amount to the sum of all items. The resulting amount will be the TEP. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The table below illustrates calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. The table is provided for illustration purposes only. Prices reflected in the table 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.