FY26 ADL SSP.docx

Source Selection Plan (SSP) for Request for Quotes: Solicitation Number :

AMS Designated Laboratories (ADL) Services

APPROVED:

Wesley Harris Date Director of International and Service Contracting Division

Darin Doerscher Date Senior Technical Advisor Technical Evaluation Chairperson

Daniel Moore Date AMS Contracting Officer

Table of Contents

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

011-M-APHIS-05 Source Selection Information See FAR 3.104

Solicitation: 12-1NTS-26-R-0002

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Source Selection Plan (SSP) describes the procedures for the evaluation of proposals received in response to Request for Proposals (RFP) (Solicitation Number 12-1NTS-26-R-0002) – AMS Designated Laboratories (ADL). The objective of source selection is to select the proposal that represents the best value to the Government. FAR 2.101 defines “best value” as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

Consistent with FAR 15.303(a), the Contracting Officer (C.O.) is designated as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for this acquisition. The SSA’s decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the RFP. Although the SSA will consider the results of the evaluation team and their summary report, the source selection decision will represent the SSA’s independent judgments. The source selection decision will be documented, and the documentation will include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs. Although the rationale for the selection decision must be documented that documentation need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision.

This SSP utilizes the process under FAR 12.6, “Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items.” In accordance with FAR 12.6, the evaluation team shall evaluate offers in an impartial manner and solely upon the criteria established in the solicitation.

Included in this plan are descriptions of the evaluation team and their duties, evaluation procedures, and source selection criteria. A nondisclosure certification document and technical evaluation scoring sheets are included as attachments.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process for proposals can consist of up to six steps. The first step will be an examination of the acceptability of each proposal to the submission requirements. The second step will be the evaluation and rating of each proposal against the evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation and preparation of proposal evaluation reports. The third step, if applicable, will be a determination of those offers that should comprise the competitive range. The fourth step, if applicable, is discussions with those in the competitive range. The fifth step, if applicable, is evaluation of final proposal revisions and preparation of final proposal evaluation reports. The sixth step is analyzing the various evaluations to determine the best value source selections.

2.1 Step One – Acceptability of Proposals

The Contracting Officer will determine the acceptability of each offer by ensuring that each proposal:

· arrives on time,

· is signed by the offeror,

· acknowledges all substantive amendments issued,

· contains all required information and submittals in the required format, and is submitted by an offeror with a current System for Award Management (SAM) registration

The Contracting Officer shall act as SSA to direct the source selection process and make the source selection decision, in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.303. The SSA shall establish an evaluation team, tailored for this acquisition that includes appropriate contracting, legal, technical, and other expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of offers. The SSA shall ensure consistency among the solicitation requirements, notices to offerors, proposal preparation instructions, evaluation factors and subfactors, solicitation provisions or contract clauses, and data requirements. The SSA shall ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the factors and subfactors contained in the solicitation. The SSA shall select the source whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

2.2 Step Two – Proposal Evaluation and Rating

The Contracting Officer will provide each evaluation team with a copy of the proposals to be evaluated and brief the teams on the evaluation process as described in the previous section. If a clarification of an offeror’s proposal information is required, contact the Contracting Officer through the Evaluation Chairperson to coordinate the submission of the clarifying information from the Offeror. Once individual assessments are completed, the evaluation team must meet to consolidate and reach consensus on the revised ratings. The evaluation memorandum will be completed by the Evaluation Chairperson and include a table that ranks all proposals from most acceptable to least acceptable and shows the individual and overall evaluation ratings assigned to each proposal evaluation factor. The report will also include narrative descriptions for each proposal expressing, in detail, the team’s analysis of all strengths, weaknesses, risk assessment, and, if applicable, deficiencies. In the event of unresolved differences among team members, minority reports from dissenting team members will be included in the evaluation memorandum. Evaluation rating sheets for the technical information and past performance proposal sections are included as attachments to this SSP.

2.3 Step Three – Establishment of Competitive Range (if entering negotiations)

The Contracting Officer will determine which firms should be included within the competitive range. The range will be established in accordance with FAR 15.306(c) and shall be composed of all of the most highly rated proposals. The competitive range decision will be documented.

2.4 Step Four – Discussions with Offerors (if entering negotiations)

After establishment of the competitive range, the Contracting Officer, with the assistance of the Evaluation Chairperson(s) and any other appropriate technical advisors, may conduct discussions with each of the offerors in the competitive range to discuss deficiencies, significant weaknesses, adverse past performance information, and other information which could be altered or explained to materially enhance the proposal’s potential for award in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). Based on these conversations, offerors will be given the chance to submit a final proposal revision at the conclusion of these discussions. If discussions are conducted with one offeror within the competitive range, they must be conducted with all offerors within the competitive range. The Government reserves the right to award without conducting discussions.

2.5 Step Five – Final Evaluation Reports (if negotiations were conducted)

If final proposal revisions are requested, the technical evaluation team will re-evaluate each of the proposals in the competitive range to rate any revised proposal information. Once individual assessments are completed, the evaluation team must meet to consolidate and reach consensus on the revised ratings. The evaluation memorandum shall be updated to reflect the revised information, including the rationale for any changes to the initial assessments. The final memoranda will include narrative descriptions for each proposal expressing, in detail, the team’s analysis of all strengths, weaknesses and risk assessment. In the event of unresolved differences among team members, minority reports from dissenting team members will be included in the evaluation memorandum.

2.6 Step Six – Final Selection – Best Value (BV)

The Government may make an award without discussions; therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain their best pricing. The award will be made based on Best Value (BV) for the Government, considering the evaluation factors listed above. Please note that all offerors that fail to furnish the required proposal information or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration for award.

The Technical Evaluation Team (TET) members will consist of a minimum of three individuals who represent the various functional and technical disciplines relevant to this acquisition. One individual from the Service Contracting Branch and two individuals from the Marine Debt & Finance Branch and one individual from the International Food Assistance Division will be utilized. The evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with this SSP and the evaluation criteria established in the solicitation to assess each offeror’s ability to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation. The team will examine each proposal against the factors, and subfactors if any, that are identified in the solicitation and rate each proposal based on an assessment of its merit.

3.0 EVALUATION TEAM

The SSA is responsible for making the final decision resulting from this evaluation. The Contracting Officer will act as the SSA by overseeing/coordinating the evaluation activities. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) will conduct the technical evaluation of each offeror’s proposal. The TEP will be composed of the Evaluation Chairperson, two to three members who have been selected to ensure a representation of expertise capable of evaluating all technical aspects of the proposals, and any technical advisors deemed to be necessary. The Price Evaluation Panel (PEP) will evaluate each offeror’s price proposal. The following individuals are assigned as members of the team:

Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) – Technical Information and Past Performance

Observer

Observer

Observer

Price Evaluation Panel (PEP) – Price

Source Selection Authority (SSA)

3.1 RULES of CONDUCT

The sensitivity of competitive source selection information dictates absolute security throughout the entire proceedings, including the actions of all personnel associated with the evaluation and administration of proposals, the deliberations of the various boards, and presentations to higher authority. Unauthorized disclosure of source selection information is against the law and can be damaging to the USDA’s interests, both in terms of (1) criticism resulting from failure to conduct business affairs properly and (2) the loss of the competitive environment essential to the source selection process. Accordingly, team members will take appropriate steps to ensure offeror’s proposals and other source selection information is adequately safeguarded. Therefore, all source selection participants shall adhere to the following rules of conduct:

(a) Do not discuss proposal, findings, recommendations, etc. outside working areas or within hearing range of individuals not participating in the source selection. This is especially true when in lunchrooms, at public gatherings, in rest rooms, on public conveyances, or among personal friends or colleagues who are not participants.

(b) Do not assume it is safe to discuss the source selection because you are among government employees or in Government buildings.

(c) Do not accept an invitation from an offeror or any of its personnel to participate in any event/function, regardless of how remote it may be from the source selection process, without consulting and obtaining the approval of the Contracting Officer. Standards of conduct/conflict of interest questions should be referred to the Contracting Officer as soon as they arise.

(d) Do not discuss any part of the source selection with anyone outside of the evaluation team. Any contacts from persons not involved in the source selection process should be reported immediately to the Contracting Officer.

3.2 Duties and Responsibilities of the Source Selection Authority (SSA)

(a) Consistent with FAR 15.303(a), the Contracting Officer is designated as the SSA for this acquisition. The SSA’s decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the RFP. Although the SSA will consider the results of the team’s evaluation and its summary report, the source selection decision will represent the SSA’s independent judgment. The source selection decision will be documented, and the documentation will include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs. Although the rationale for the selection decision must be documented that documentation need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision.

(b) Establish an evaluation team, tailored for the particular acquisition, that includes appropriate contracting, legal, logistics, technical, and other expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of offers;

(c) Approve the source selection strategy or acquisition plan, if applicable, before solicitation release;

(d) Ensure consistency among the solicitation requirements, notices to offerors, proposal preparation instructions, evaluation factors and subfactors, solicitation provisions or contract clauses, and data requirements;

(e) Ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the factors and subfactors contained in the solicitation (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4)(C) and 41 U.S.C. 3703(c));

(f) Consider the recommendations of advisory boards or panels (if any); and

(g) Select the source or sources whose proposal is the best value to the Government (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4)(C) and 41 U.S.C. 3703(c))

3.3 Duties and Responsibilities of the Contracting Officer (CO)

(a) After release of a solicitation, serve as the focal point for inquiries from actual or prospective offerors;

(b) After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors in accordance with 15.306; and

(c) Award the contract(s).

3.4 Duties and Responsibilities of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Chairperson and the TEP Team

(a) The Evaluation Chairperson is responsible for ensuring the team performs its duties in accordance with the SSP and applicable regulations. The Evaluation Chairperson will:

(1) Lead and manage the efforts of the evaluation team in evaluating each proposal’s technical information proposal. This includes establishing schedules, ensuring efficient communications, and securing adequate resources.

(2) Act as liaison between the team and the Contracting Officer.

(3) Provide recommendations for the necessity of inspections of offeror’s facilities based on the initial submission of proposals.

(4) Upon receipt and review of team members’ individual scoring sheets, convene a team consensus meeting to reconcile disagreements and discrepant ratings between the evaluators. Consensus is the process of arriving at a group rating/assessment that, despite minor differences among the team members, can be supported by all group members. Consensus is not “voting” but the seeking of a mutually agreeable outcome that all members can support. The Evaluation Chairperson shall document the rationale for any unresolved differences.

(5) Develop a Consensus Evaluation Report, ranking the proposals in accordance with the evaluation factors. Summarize identified strengths, weaknesses, risk assessments, and deficiencies, if applicable, associated with each proposal. Include an award recommendation for the Contracting Officer on the offeror(s) that represent the best value to the Government.

(b) The Evaluation Team is composed of personnel specifically selected for their knowledge and expertise in the technical requirements of the RFP. Each member will:

(1) Conduct an individual evaluation of each offeror’s technical information proposal and management workforce practices and policies.

(2) Record and submit to the Evaluation Chairperson the results of the individual evaluations to include a narrative discussion of the particular strengths, weaknesses, risk assessments, and deficiencies, if applicable, associated with each proposal. Participate in a consensus meeting to discuss/resolve any differences in evaluation ratings and reach consensus.

(3) Provide suggested topics for discussions and questions/statements to be presented to offerors in the event discussions are to be conducted.

3.5 Duties and Responsibilities of the Price Evaluation Panel (PEP)

(a) Rank the proposed not-to-exceed price of each proposal using the Schedule of Items as a model for price comparison.

(b) Document all price evaluation results.

3.6 Conflicts of Interest

Each member of the Evaluation Team has the responsibility to notify the Contracting Officer of any conflict of interest issues that are encountered or arise during the source selection process.

4.0 EVALUATION PROCEDURES, FACTORS, AND RATINGS

The evaluation team will evaluate the offeror’s proposals against the applicable evaluation criteria and other requirements of the solicitation. The evaluators will use their technical and managerial judgment and experience in determining ratings, assessments and narratives on strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies. The Evaluation Chairperson and Contracting Officer are accountable to ensure each offeror’s proposal is sufficiently evaluated, consensus reached, and the evaluation results documented in the evaluation memorandum.

4.1 Evaluation Procedures

The procurement screening is an initial go/no-go check performed by the SSA to verify that minimum procurement and submittal requirements have been met. This screening will eliminate those proposals that fail to provide the required information. Information concerning the no-go decision will be documented by the SSA. The SSA may waive information and minor irregularities in the proposals received.

4.1.1 Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)

a) Read the Request for Proposals (RFP) to become familiar with the Government requirements.

b) Carefully read each offeror’s proposal and evaluate it independently based on only the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP, and using the evaluation forms provided.

c) For each evaluation factor, identify strengths, weaknesses, and or deficiencies (if any) and note any items for negotiation.

d) Provide an adjectival rating of Outstanding, Superior, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unacceptable for the technical information proposal and Low Risk, Moderate Risk, High Risk, or Unknown Risk for past performance proposal.

e) The TEP Chairperson will convene a meeting of the evaluators to review initial ratings. If there are significant disagreements (e.g. one evaluator rates the offeror on a particular evaluation factor as Outstanding and another evaluator rates the offeror on that same evaluation factor as Satisfactory or Marginal – the difference must be resolved by the TEP reaching a consensus. The TEP Chairperson is responsible for conducting all required meetings for a discussion of the initial ratings. Evaluators may change their initial ratings as a result of discussions among the evaluators, and the consensus adjective rating of the TEP must be recorded.

f) The TEP Chairperson is responsible for the final technical evaluation memorandum addressed to the Contracting Officer. The TEP memorandum must address the ranking of all offers (e.g. first, second, third), the adjectival ratings assigned, significant strengths and weaknesses identified for each offer, and changes to the initial ratings in order to arrive at the final consensus.

4.1.2 Price Evaluation Panel (PEP)

a) Rank the proposed not-to-exceed price of each proposal using the Schedule of Items as a model for price comparison.

b) Document all price evaluation results.

4.2 Evaluation Factors

4.2.1 Proposal Part 1: Technical Approach

The technical evaluation will focus primarily on the contractor’s ability to perform operational activities and/or processes it will undertake to accomplish the objectives stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in accordance with Sections 1.3 Objectives, 3.6 Observation Procedures, and 1.1.5 Technical Requirements/Tasks.

The proposal submitted must address the technical capabilities of the contractor. The description should explain how the contractor has demonstrated/used the technical abilities required for successful performance in this type of task. The proposal provides evidence that the offeror understands the performance objectives, observation procedures, and technical requirements/tasks stated in the PWS, and the contractor’s detailed plan documents a proposed solution/approach to meet the Government requirement.

The offeror shall provide sample observation reports that are relevant to PWS. The samples shall reflect work performed for loading, discharge, and delivery observation.

4.2.2 Proposal Part 2: Contractor Capacity

The offeror shall document their ability to commence work immediately upon award and deliver results in the requested time frames of task orders against this contract. The proposal will demonstrate the offeror’s capability and capacity to commence work and deliver results within the time frames needed by the government. The proposal will outline the offeror’s approach for delivering results within the government's required deadlines. The offer should include an overview of how the offeror will handle topics such as timely submission of accurate/complete reports, open communication lines with all other parties involved in the observation operation, responsiveness to inquiries, and proactive behavior.

The contractor shall demonstrate its ability to fill necessary positions with qualified individuals, considering factors such as experience, education, awards, training, and self-development, which relate to its overall capability to recruit, select, train, and retain staff with the expertise required to perform at the standard level expected for this task. The contractor must also demonstrate that it has personnel with appropriate experience, education, training, and self-development as it relates to PWS.

Sufficient staffing shall be available to cover potentially multiple and simultaneous duties in numerous locations. The offeror should include a list of key personnel and their résumés to support this contract, as well as a list of identification of key personnel for the successful administration. Resume should be no longer than two (2) pages in length. The resumes of key personnel should demonstrate their knowledge and skills capable of managing a service contract of a similar size and scope. A primary point of contact and back-up shall be provided. Observations shall be completed by qualified personnel.

4.2.3 Proposal Part 3: Past Performance Information

The offeror shall submit a min. of two (2) past references of either Prime/Subcontractor (current/past work) of similar size and/or scope and performed within the past five (5) years, along with a description of the contract work performed. Provide a written discussion of past performance problems and the corrective actions taken to resolve those problems. The information provided should be sufficient to demonstrate the relevance of the previous work scope or equivalent. If two (2) references cannot be provided, the offeror must justify why these references cannot be provided to meet the acceptable criteria. References must include the following information:

· Name of Contracting Activity

· Contract and Task Order numbers, and Contract type

· Total Contract Value

· Description of Contract Work/Effort

· Name of Contracting Officer, Telephone, and Email

· Name of Government Program Manager, Telephone, and Email

· Performance Dates

4.3 Evaluation Adjectival Ratings

4.3.1 Technical Information

TEP evaluators shall use the table below when evaluating and documenting proposal strengths or weaknesses. Evaluators shall provide succinct narratives (on the applicable scoring sheets) supporting the rationale for the level assigned to each respective evaluation factor.

Adjectival Ratings

The following adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate the offeror’s Technical Approach Proposal.

EVALUATION RATINGS

OUTSTANDING

(O)

The proposal clearly defined and described processes to meet the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). It is obvious that the offeror has significant expertise in producing the required product and will meet or exceed all contract requirements. The proposal demonstrates significant strengths and exceeds the fullest expectations of the Government.

EXCELLENT

(E)

The proposal demonstrates a level of effort that fully meets the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. The offeror has expertise in providing the required product and will meet all contract requirements. The proposal demonstrates some strengths and essentially no weaknesses.

SATISFACTORY

(S)

The proposal meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The proposal may contain weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses that are correctable, but no deficiencies. If a weakness and/or significant weakness are noted, they should not seriously affect the offerors performance.

MARGINAL

(M)

The proposal demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirements and approach and only meets the minimum evaluation standard. It is highly probable the offeror could not produce an acceptable product based upon the information provided. The proposal contains weaknesses or significant weaknesses and deficiencies that may impact successful contract performance.

4.3.2 Past Performance

The following adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate the offeror’s Past Performance.

PERFORMANCE RISK (for Past Performance Evaluation Factor)

Low Risk (L) Little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on the offeror’s past performance record.

Moderate Risk (M) Some doubt exists that the offeror can successfully perform the required effort based on the offeror’s past performance record.

High Risk (H) Significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on the offeror’s past performance record.

Unknown Risk

(UK)

Offeror is without a record of relevant past performance or past performance information is not available. The rating shall be characterized as neutral.

4.4 Deficiencies and Significant Weaknesses

Each evaluation team shall identify deficiencies and/or significant weaknesses in an offeror's proposal, if applicable, and record them on the applicable scoring sheet for a particular evaluation factor. A “deficiency” is defined by FAR 15.001 as “a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an Unsatisfactory level.” Examples may include:

• Failure of the offeror to submit required data, which makes it impossible for the Government to evaluate the offeror's technical approach;

• Failure to respond to a specific requirement of the solicitation.

Deficiencies shall not be released to offerors until the competitive range is determined, and discussions are opened by the Contracting Officer. Discussions provide offerors opportunities to revise and improve their proposals and are provided to offerors in the competitive range in order for them to make amendments and corrections when submitting their proposal revisions.

The team must write specific, detailed narrative(s) that rationalize the assignment of a deficiency or significant weakness. Evaluators should not suggest how the offeror’s proposal should be corrected or improved. The team’s primary responsibility is to clearly lead the offeror to those areas of their proposal that are judged by evaluators to be deficient and/or significantly weak. It is the offeror’s responsibility to determine how they will respond to deficiencies when submitting revisions to their proposals.

5.0 NON-DISCLOSURE AND EVALUATION FORMS