SECTION_M_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

SECTION M

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADEOFF WITH TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors’ past performance history and technical acceptability will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations as set forth in the process below. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their price and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all technical requirements and will be determined technically acceptable. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

B. Price Evaluation: The government shall rank all offers by price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FR 52.219-04, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price. Affordability depends on funds available at time of award

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

D. Recent contracts are described as completed within the past five (5) years. Relevant contracts include the following: Office renovations including asbestos removal, lead removal, mold remediation, and interior finishes; HVAC construction including water piping, air handlers, heat exchangers, and pumps; Electrical construction including mechanical equipment and facility power, panel board, interior lighting, and network communication wiring; Fire system construction including sprinkler systems, fire detection systems, and mass notification systems. In addition, contracts shall include construction project management experience with $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 plus dollar projects including installation design and job planning and scheduling of all subcontracted work. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined by DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table

5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant

Attachment 4 experience or subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or it the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment history or if the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

DoD Source Selection Procedures:

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 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.

E. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

F. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

G. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is not judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

H. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

I. The government intends to award a contract without discussion with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.