Atch_10_Section_M_Evaluation_for_Awards_.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADEOFF (PPT)

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors past performance history will be evaluated on a basis more important than cost or price considerations. 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 such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices (coefficients) and performance records.

The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price (Coefficient) factor. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined contractually unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Any offer that fails to cite a price (coefficient) for each line item or fails to make an entry that indicates service will be provided at no charge will be rejected as nonconforming to this solicitation. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. Price (Coefficient) Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price (lowest to highest Coefficient), including any option prices if applicable.

a. Evaluation of coefficients will be made to determine if they are compatible with the proposed scope, and are not imbalanced, and are neither excessive or insufficient for the effort to be accomplished.

1) The supporting documentation will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Reasonableness will be determined based on the coefficients submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and comparison to the Government Estimate.

2) The Government will evaluate the offeror's ability to obtain required bonding and evidence of ability to cover initial operating expenses for this contract. Recent independently audited financial statements will be considered along with letters provided by loan officers, bonding agents and creditors.

3) Coefficients will be evaluated using the following weighted criteria (Actual Assessed % Column) based on the volume of work and proposed coefficients. Percentages assigned are based on the Government's estimate of the anticipated percentage of work to be accomplished under each line item. For evaluation purposes the assigned percentage will be applied to the contractor's proposed coefficient for each Contract Line Item (CLIN). The result will be summed to determine the total evaluated coefficient.

Coefficient Ranking: The following example illustrates how offerors will be ranked by price.

The coefficients shown are for clarification only and do not represent real past or present coefficients. The assessed percentages in the example below are the actual percentages that will be used for evaluation purposes:

1058964545C Text Box Attachment 10

FA9101-15-R-0002

EXAMPLE:

CLIN SAMPLE COEFFICIENT ACTUAL ASSESSED %

TOTAL

0001 1.17 19% (i.e. 19% x 1.17 = 0.2223) 0.2223 0002 1.23 1% 0.0123 0003 1.21 19% 0.2299 0004 1.27 1% 0.0127 0005 1.25 19% 0.2375 0006 1.31 1% 0.0131 0007 1.29 19% 0.2451 0008 1.35 1% 0.0135 0009 1.33 19% 0.2527 0010 1.39 1%

0.0139 100%

OVERALL COEFFICIENT FACTOR FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES

(0.2223 + 0.0123 + 0.2299 + 0.0127 + 0.2375 + 0.0131 + 0.2451 + 0.0135 + 0.2527 + 0.0139) = 1.2530

The Government reserves the right to extend decimal places indefinitely for evaluation purposes.

Reasonableness: The offeror’s overall coefficient factor for evaluation purposes will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the overall summed coefficient factor proposed for basic requirement (basic award) and all options. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The offeror’s Price (Overall Coefficient Factor) proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

Realism: Realism is evaluated by assessing the compatibility of proposed coefficient price with the proposal scope and effort. For the coefficients to be realistic, they must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort if the offeror operates with reasonable economy and efficiency. The Government shall evaluate the price proposal to determine the offeror's compliance with the requirements of this solicitation. Unrealistically low coefficients or other price/cost data, either initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement. Coefficients submitted which are unusually low due to special circumstances such as special material prices, unusually low overhead, unique procedures, etc., should include a brief explanation to that effect, other than cost or pricing data. Cost and pricing data is not desired nor will it be evaluated.

Only proposals determined to be reasonable, complete, and realistic will be considered for further evaluation in Section B, Factor 2 - Past Performance.

2. Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror to include Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.

a. Relevancy is projects similar in scope and complexity defined as follows:

(1) Extensive renovation of facilities of similar size and complexity

(2) Involve a minimum of three disciplines (multi-discipline),

(3) Have a total project cost of $100,000 or greater,

(4) Were managed concurrently with other projects meeting both (1) (2) and (3) above.

b. The Government will evaluate the offerors ability to successfully complete multi-discipline projects, managed concurrently; based on demonstrated past performance. The more efforts meeting the criteria of relevant in the offeror's past performance information, the more relevant that offeror's past performance will be considered. The Government will also consider offeror’s past performance regarding quality, timely performance, management effectiveness, contract administration, compliance with safety standards, and overall performance as reported on PPQs and in PPIRS. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing for at least one year or must have been completed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

c. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. 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 questionnaires information 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):

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

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.

d. 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. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors 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 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).

e. 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.

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.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

f. 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.

g. If the lowest priced (Coefficient) evaluated 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.

h. If the lowest priced offeror 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-Coefficient) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

i. 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.

j. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (Ref: FAR 52.215-1 and Except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and past performance. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the

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.

number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award 1 (One) contract for the SABER Program.