Atch_9_-_M-III_BASIS_OF_AWARD_AND_EVALUATION_CRITERIA.pdf

FA8823-15-R-0001 Section J Atch 9

M-III BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

By submission of a proposal, the Offeror represents that its team is capable of performing all requirements and meeting all standards specified in the solicitation and included in the proposal.

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

1.1. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for this acquisition to a responsible small business whose proposal meets all the requirements of the solicitation, is found acceptable in responsiveness compliance, technical approach and price factors and offers the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all.

1.2. No award will be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, the Offeror must meet each of the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. In addition, the Offeror must meet the requirements for Compensation for Professional Employees and Organizational Conflict of Interest. The Government will verify the Offeror's registration in the System for Award Management database.

1.3. Limitation on Subcontracting. The Government will evaluate proposals for compliance with FAR 52.219-14 "Limitations on Subcontracting." If an Offeror's proposal demonstrates that it will not comply with FAR 52.219-14, then the proposal will be deemed ineligible for award.

1.4. This acquisition will utilize a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection strategy in accordance with the FAR §15.101-2, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) §215.3, the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) §5315.3, and Air Force Mandatory Procedure (MP) MP5315.3. The regulation and supplements are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, 32TUhttp://farsite.hill.af.milU32T.

1.5. Proposals will be evaluated using the Price and Technical factors described herein. Technical proposals will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. If an Offeror receives an "unacceptable" rating in any technical subfactor, the factor will receive an "unacceptable" rating and the Offeror will not be eligible for award. A proposal that contains a deficiency in other areas that fail to meet the stated requirements of the solicitation or do not conform to the terms and conditions will be considered non-responsive, non-compliant, or otherwise ineligible.

1.6. The initial offer should be timely, accurate and complete and contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity. A source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

While the SSA may use reports and analysis prepared by others, the source selection decision and contract award shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment.

1.7. The Government intends to award without discussions, however, if discussions are necessary, they will be conducted in accordance with FAR § 15.306. 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 used when making the source selection 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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.8. Alternate Proposals. 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 and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being technically unacceptable.

1.9. Deviations. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to or other deviations from the solicitation requirements, terms or conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale for changes to price or performance standards. The Government reserves the right to determine exceptions to the terms and conditions as non-responsive and ineligible for award.

1.10. The Professional Employee Compensation Plan submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-46. The Compensation Plan will be relied upon as one of the elements in determining if an Offeror has affirmatively demonstrated their responsiveness to the solicitation and ultimately the determination of eligibility for award.

2. CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

2.1 Documentation must be compliant, complete, accurate and timely.

2.1.1 To be found acceptable, the complete proposal must have been properly received prior to the response due date and time. All required documentation was included and all data complete and accurate. Proposal content and format are as instructed. The offer is signed by an authorized individual. The required size standard certification is provided demonstrating it qualifies as a small business under the assigned NAICS.

2.1.2 To be found acceptable, the Offeror must have provided a representation of compliance with FAR 52.219-14 in the contracts volume.

3. PRICE FACTOR.

3.1. PRICE EVALUATION. The evaluations consist of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the source selection decision and calculation of the Total Contract Price. All proposed prices will be assessed for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. The Offeror's proposed Price Volume will be evaluated for the basic contract requirements (basic award) and all options, based on the criteria below.

The evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.1.1. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP will be calculated as the sum of the FFP proposed prices for CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001 and 3001. The Government will verify the calculation in accordance with Section L, paragraph 4.2.3. The Offeror calculated total will be used as that evaluated dollar value that will be shown to the SSA for the price factor.

3.1.2. Reasonableness: The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness by using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 Contract Pricing. 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.

3.1.3. Unbalanced Pricing: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total TEP, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items. An Offeror whose proposal is determined to be unbalanced may be determined un-awardable if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g) Unbalanced Pricing).

4. TECHNICAL EVALUATION. Technical Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

Each subfactor will receive a single rating. Descriptions of the ratings are taken from the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1, excerpted below:

Table 1. Factor Subfactor Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

4.1. Reserved

4.2. Evaluation of Technical Factor. During the evaluation process, the Government will base its evaluation on the Offeror’s responses to the associated instructions for Factor/Subfactors in Section L.

All Subfactors are of equal importance to each other. If the Offeror receives an Unacceptable rating in any subfactor, its entire proposal will be rated technically unacceptable.

4.2.1. SUBFACTOR 1 – Phase-In and Transition: The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements for staffing leadership, management and technical personnel for all GEARSS performance locations. The criteria are met when the Offeror:

4.2.1.1. Provides a Phase-In Plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to ensure leadership and management personnel are ready to execute requirements at contract award IAW

PWS 3.6.2.

4.2.1.2. Provides a Phase-In Plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to ensure all technical staff to perform GEARSS PWS tasks are ready to execute requirements at contract start IAW PWS 3.6.2.

4.2.2. SUBFACTOR 2: Critical Staffing. This subfactor evaluates the proposal to determine if the proposal meets the requirements for staffing the overall effort and the staffing of key PWS tasks.

The criteria are met when the Offeror:

4.2.2.1. Demonstrates a clear understanding of its ability to provide staffing sufficient to perform paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.9, 3.3.10, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.5 of the PWS.

4.2.2.2. Demonstrates a clear understanding of sufficient hiring procedures, retention history and contingency offers to obtain the staffing needed to perform all the tasks in the PWS.

4.2.2.3. Provide an organizational structure with detailed skill mixes and hours that demonstrates a clear understanding that all tasks in the PWS will be properly executed and managed.

4.2.2.4. All contractual inter-dependencies, cross-utilization, or other shared resources, including any

GFP usage is identified and the technical approach demonstrates a clear risk assessment associated with these environments.

4.2.3. SUBFACTOR 3: Technical Process Approach. The Government will evaluate whether the

Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements for technical understanding. The criteria are met when the Offeror:

4.2.3.1. Provides an overall proposed approach that demonstrates a clear understanding of the

GEARSS environment described in PWS 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

4.2.3.2. Proposes in Attachment 3 to Volume I, rights in data that satisfies the Government’s minimum needs as described in this RFP.