Vandenberg_Section_M-21_May_2013.pdf

SECTION M (Vandenberg PBR)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically a t the Air Force (AF) FAR site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation Factors and Subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air

Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Award Without Discussions

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines discussions to be necessary. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any Subfactor will be deemed unawardable. Additionally, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) will be reviewed and included in the responsibility determination for the apparent successful Offeror. Initial proposals with unmitigatable OCI may be deemed unawardable.

c. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Vandenberg Performance-Based

Remediation (PBR) Program.

d. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in cost when compared to

Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 1.2: Plan B, Contingency Approach

Subfactor 1.3: Management Approach

Subfactor 1.4: Corporate Experience (same projects as Past Performance)

Subfactor 1.5: Extent of Participation of Small Business Concerns

Factor 2: Past Performance (same projects as Corporate Experience)

Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each

Factor and Subfactor is as follows. Technical, Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor 1.1 (Technical

Approach) is most important. Next are Subfactors 1.2 & 1.4 (Plan B, Contingency Approach &

Corporate Experience) which are equally important.

(3) Subfactor 1.3 (Management Approach) and Subfactor 1.5 (Extent of Participation of

Small Business Concerns) will be evaluated using Acceptable or Un-acceptable ratings and will not be included in the trade-off process.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

b. Technical Factor (FACTOR 1)

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical

Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical Subfactor.

(1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4, will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in DoD Source file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304

Selection Procedures, Table 2.1 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color/adjectival rating depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactors 1.3 and 1.5 will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The adjectival ratings for

Acceptable and Unacceptable are outlined in Table 2.2. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color/adjectival rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2.2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS (SUBFACTORS 1.3 and 1.5)

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Subfactor 1.1 - Technical Approach:

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a realistic approach that is technically appropriate based on current site conditions, is consistent with the

Government’s objectives, and provides an explanation in sufficient detail to support

Government evaluation of how all of the objectives and requirements in the SOO and

TABLE 2.1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS (SUBFACTORS 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4)

Color Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

other applicable agreements will be met or exceeded while ensuring protection of human and ecological health, maintaining regulatory compliance, and minimizing Air Force life-cycle costs.

(a) At a minimum, the Offeror’s proposal shall:

Include a Summary Table for all sites that reflects the Offeror’s proposed approach.

Adequately demonstrate why the selected performance objective for each site

(including the minimum performance objective if that is what is proposed) is an optimal solution for the Government.

The Offeror shall submit a sound approach to achieve SC or move as close to

SC as possible during the POP without expending large sums for contingencies, including 1) defensible strategies for advancing the site status as far as reasonable per the preferred end states in Section 1.0 of the SOO, and 2) a business case analysis to support the selected performance objective (i.e., the rationale for why SC is either not technically feasible or not cost effective for those sites not proposed to achieve SC within the POP).

For sites where the proposed performance objective includes an OES, the

Offeror shall demonstrate sound exit strategies using objective metrics and transparent decision logic. The OES shall demonstrate the following: a logical and realistic technical approach indicating how concentrations will be reduced over time from baseline conditions and how interim and final performance objectives will be met.

o Where the proposed performance objective for a site in Table 1 of the

SOO includes an OES, the proposed performance model shall demonstrate quantitative and measurable performance indicators (e.g., concentration decrease throughout the POP for specified contaminants or risk reduction) relevant to the proposed remedial approach, and suited to transparent evaluation of actual progress toward the expected outcome or state at the end of the POP. Depending on site complexity, several indicators may be needed to adequately reflect performance of an OES.

These criteria apply to both conceptual and fully-developed performance models.

o For the sites where the Air Force has provided a baseline evaluation, the

Offeror’s proposed fully-developed performance model shall demonstrate a significant reduction in contaminant concentrations relative to baseline conditions, reduction of contaminant mass, and/or risk reduction throughout the POP. A significant reduction is defined as decreased contaminant concentration, mass and/or risk that exceeds that which would be expected under monitored natural attenuation or plume containment strategies.

Provide separate costs for the full value, with activities and assumptions, for closing each landfill, recycling its content, eliminating future environmental liabilities and returning the cleaned up landfill to productive use as compared to maintaining landfill caps, monitoring systems, and reporting requirements in perpetuity as part of this analysis. Costs and assumptions for landfills will be used for validation of the proposed approach for each landfill.

Demonstrate reasonable and logical activities and assumptions for the remaining Air Force financial liability for achieving SC, if not reached during the POP. This includes anticipated activities (and their duration), and realistic assumptions. POP and Post-POP life cycle activities and assumptions will be evaluated to substantiate the Offeror’s understanding of the work. For the purpose of determining whether the Offeror’s proposed technical approach will reduce life-cycle costs, the Government may compare the Offeror’s life-cycle cost estimate (computed by the Government) to the Government’s independent life-cycle cost estimate. The Government’s independent life-cycle cost estimate is $260,000,000.

Adequately demonstrate the ability to implement and refine proposed or existing remediation systems in accordance with California state regulations and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board.

(b) The Offeror's proposal shall also include a sound and realistic activity-based

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). At a minimum, the offeror’s IMS shall:

Outline key activities and milestones defined at the appropriate level and logically sequenced to support and manage achievement of the proposed performance objectives, consistent with the narrative discussion of the approach in the proposal.

Demonstrate achievement of proposed performance objectives within the time designated.

Effectively identify the required OES deliverables. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate through the performance model (i.e., interim and final performance goals) that the proposed activities and milestones are reasonable achievements for implementing the OES strategy.

Demonstrate logical incorporation of Government and Regulatory review periods for deliverables.

(c ) The Offeror's proposal shall also include a sound and realistic activity-based

Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS), (without price information), that demonstrates correlation with the IMS and Technical Approach and includes milestones defined at the appropriate level, logically sequenced, and considered integral and necessary to the achievement of the performance objective.

Subfactor 1.2 - Plan B, Contingency Approach:

(a) This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates logical and reasonable elimination or mitigation strategies and/or contingencies for addressing the identified risks associated with the project and proposed technical approach, inclusive of potential system failures, (e.g., Plan B).

At a minimum, the Offeror’s proposal shall:

Effectively identify the significant risk factors associated with obtaining the performance objectives using the proposed technical approach.

Demonstrate an appropriate risk mitigation approach to ensure the proposed performance objective is met.

Demonstrate logical and reasonable contingency plans (alternate technical approach/i.e. Plan B) to ensure achievement of the proposed performance objectives. The proposal shall include the decision logic and timing for implementation of the contingency plan if the proposed approach proves incapable of meeting the proposed performance objectives within the required timeframes.

Subfactor 1.3 - Management Approach:

(a) This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes a comprehensive

Management Plan and Key Personnel Qualifications. The Management Plan shall include a qualified field and management team, including key personnel with relevant experience to efficiently and effectively achieve the proposed site-specific performance objectives and milestones as scheduled, manage the requirements, and ensure quality services and deliverables.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s Management Plan shall include:

Clear identification of roles and responsibilities for key personnel, subcontractors; and other relevant team members and provide an organizational chart. Key personnel shall include: Program Manager, Program Chemist;

Program QA/QC, Program Health and Safety Manager, Superintendent for

Construction.

A demonstration of effective and efficient management of the work in order to meet the requirements of the SOO (for example, Natural/Cultural Resources, UXO Support, Remediation Systems, etc.). Provide a Process Map showing critical decision points and individuals responsible for managing the proposed technical approach.

A demonstration of an efficient approach for managing multiple and concurrent events. Provide a Process Map showing critical decision points and individuals responsible for managing multiple and concurrent events.

A demonstration that the team has relevant experience with the remediation technologies proposed.

A demonstration of procedures/processes to ensure high-quality services and submission of deliverables. At a minimum, the procedures/processes shall include change management, team integration/coordination, minimize data errors, review process (project reviewing, editing for content); high-level review process to vet decisions on projects (schedule, cost, technical aspects).

A demonstration of effective communication between stakeholders (Air Force, Contractor, Regulators and Community). Proposal shall include a communication hierarchy for dealing with all stakeholders.

A demonstration of efficient and effective management of team members and subcontractors. and the role each team member and subcontractor will fulfill.

(b) At a minimum, the Offeror’s Key Personnel Qualifications shall include:

Provision of key personnel demonstrating applicable qualifications required in

Attachment 4 to include:

o A Program Manager - meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications and Parameters (Attachment 4) that has relevant experience and ability to provide effective and efficient management and implementation of the PBR efforts as outlined in the SOO.

o A Program Chemist - meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications and Parameters(Attachment 4) that has relevant experience and ability to provide effective interpretation of data and data reviews and quality checks as outlined in the SOO.

o A Program QA/QC - meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications and Parameters (Attachment 4) that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of an environmental restoration program o A Program Health and Safety Manager - meeting the required Key

Personnel Qualifications and Parameters (Attachment 4) that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of the health and safety systems for the contractor, including oversight, review, reporting, training, and control of employee health and safety processes.

o Superintendent for Construction – meeting the required Key Personnel

Qualifications and Parameters (Attachment 4) that has relevant experience and ability in construction site management and coordination for environmental efforts.

Subfactor 1.4 - Corporate Experience (same projects as Past Performance):

This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates recent and relevant team experience in accordance with the scope presented in the SOO as represented by the submitted projects. The Government will not consider performance on a project that concluded more than five (5) years prior to the date of this solicitation. For projects that are actively being performed, performance must be substantially complete (minimum 51% of work completed as of the date of solicitation). Projects are deemed recent if a project has concluded not more than five (5) years prior to the date of the solicitation. Relevant projects are environmental restoration efforts that have a minimum awarded value of

$5M, an initial period of performance of at least two years, and involve more than 10 sites containing various types of contaminants and media.

Positive consideration will be given to projects that include the following:

Award value equal to or greater than $25M;

An initial period of performance equal to or greater than five years;

50 or more sites;

PBR efforts focused on progressing sites beyond the current state;

Achievement of multiple SCs;

Experience in the regulatory environment prevalent to the State of California and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board; and/or

Innovative treatments of dissolved solvent plumes.

Subfactor 1.5 Extent of Participation of Small Business Concerns:

This Subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates the following:

Applicability for Large Businesses:

If a subcontracting plan is required by FAR 19.7, this Subfactor is met when the narrative accompanying the subcontracting plan demonstrates a valid corporate commitment between all parties in providing subcontracting opportunities for all small business, and Socio-Economic Sub-Categories, including woman-owned small business, HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business, and service disabled veteran-owned small businesses.

(a) At a minimum, provide a Subcontracting Plan IAW 19.7 (basic contract requirement) and a narrative demonstrating, the prime's corporate commitment the following subcontracting goals:

Small Business 21% of total proposed dollars

Small Disadvantaged Business 5% of total proposed subcontracting dollars

(b) The narrative must provide a clear description of how the Offeror intends to provide maximum practicable opportunity (goals) with the following Socio-Economic Sub-

Categories based on the targets set below:

Woman-Owned Small Business Target 5% of total proposed subcontracting dollars

HUBZone Small Business Target 3% of total proposed subcontracting dollars

Service Disabled Veteran-Owned

Small Business

3% of total proposed subcontracting dollars

Veteran-Owned Small Business 3% of total proposed subcontracting dollars

(1) For Small Business Subcontracting and Small Disadvantage Business

Subcontracting, the Offeror must demonstrate adherence to the goal above expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total proposed dollars for

Small Business.

(2) The Offeror must demonstrate maximum practicable opportunity for achievement of proposed goals as compared to the targets outlined above expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total proposed subcontracting dollars for all other categories above.

(c) The Subcontracting Plan submitted by the Offeror, though not evaluated as part of the

Subfactor, must provide goals as required above and must adhere to requirements listed in FAR Part 19.704 to meet contract requirements.

(2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical Subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

c. Past Performance Factor (FACTOR 2)

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence

Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.000.doc%23p5512 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc%23p5522

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors (1.1, 1.3, and 1.4) and Price Factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining

Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) 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 no more than five (5) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the

Technical Subfactors and Price Factor, including their relative order of importance (reference

M002a). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Price Factor (however, all successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Relevant projects are environmental restoration efforts that have a minimum awarded value of $5M, an initial period of performance of at least two years, and involve more than 10 sites containing various types of contaminants and media.

Positive consideration will be given to projects that include the following:

Awarded value equal to or greater than $25M;

An initial period of performance equal to or greater than five (5) years;

50 or more sites;

PBR efforts focused on progressing sites beyond the current state;

Demonstration of achievement of multiple SCs;

Demonstration of experience in the regulatory environment prevalent to the State of

California and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board; and/or

Demonstration of innovative treatments of dissolved solvent plumes.

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). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information questionnaires (PPQs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection

Procedures, Table 4):

TABLE 4 – PAST PERMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and

Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information (CCASS, ACASS, and/or CPARS), interviews with

Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small

Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Included in this assessment will be a determination of how well large business Offerors met their small business goals as evidenced by prior SF294s, Subcontracting Reports for Individual Contracts. This is not required for Small Business Offerors.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory 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. The Offeror will have an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance if the Offeror has not already done so through the formal ratings process. 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:

“O” Outstanding Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

“AA” Above Average Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government's benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

“S” Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

“M” Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

“U” Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

“N” Neutral No relevant past performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the contractor or their key personnel. (This is neither a negative nor positive assessment)

“N/A” Not Applicable Not applicable to this project

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the

Technical subfactors and /price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

d. Price Factor (Factor 3)

(1) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) for completeness, reasonableness, and realism. The TEP consists of all of the offeror's proposed

Sub-CLINs, regardless of year in which they may be exercised. A proposal is complete when all price data, as outlined in the RFP has been submitted in the proper format (Attachment L-2). A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Both a price reasonableness and a price realism analysis will also be conducted and will measure the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements; therefore, the Government may reject any proposal evaluated to be unrealistically low or unreasonably high in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low or unreasonably high in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

(2) Performance milestones shall be achievable, measurable, and demonstrate progress towards achieving the proposed site-specific performance objectives. Performance milestone payments shall be appropriate and align with the Technical Approach and the IMS. The

Government will evaluate milestones to ensure that they are NOT front loaded without supporting rationale and to ensure sufficient incentive remains to complete milestones and achieve performance objectives in accordance with the SOO.

(3) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(4) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited the following. In addition, the

Government will conduct a price realism analysis. The following techniques may be used by the

Government to determine reasonableness and realism:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

(b) Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the

Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items.

(i) The prior price will be adjusted to account for a materially differing technical approach, as well as differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors.

(ii) Expert technical advice will be obtained to analyze the magnitude of changes between the technical approach, terms and conditions, quantities, and market and economic factors for the Offeror’s proposal, and those that provided the basis for the historical prices. Expert technical advice will also be used to assist in pricing the changes.

(c) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(d) Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.

(e) Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror.

Each offeror’s price proposal shall be evaluated using one of the price analysis techniques listed above. Each technique, if utilized, shall be applied to all Offeror proposals.

e. Discussions

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 source selection decision.

M003 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

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.