GPS Section M RFI 5.docx

W519TC-24-R-0011– SECTION M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

GLOBAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES (GPS) MULTIPLE-AWARD INDEFINITE-DELIVERY INDEFINITE-QUANTITY (MA-IDIQ)

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND – ROCK ISLAND (ACC-RI)

M-1 GENERAL INFORMATION

M-1.1 Basis for Award This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented. In this procurement, the Government will determine best value based on an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO). Price will not be evaluated during this source selection (FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A)), therefore tradeoffs will not be used. Price will be evaluated at the individual task order level.

M-1.1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract to each and all qualifying Offerors (FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A)), who are also determined responsible IAW FAR Part 9. Qualifying Offerors must have a Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) of at least 67,200 points (80% of the maximum score).

M-1.1.2 IDIQ Ceiling. The overall ceiling of the IDIQ is estimated at $10,330,446,190.46for ten years. The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount. Funding will be determined at the individual task order level.

M-1.1.3 Minimum Quantity Task Order. An initial task order will be awarded to each IDIQ contractor for attendance at the Post-Award Conference Meeting. The dollar value is set at $1,000.00 and will satisfy the minimum quantity requirement. There is no guarantee of any task order beyond the minimum task order.

M-1.2 Proposal Compliance and Offeror Responsibility

M-1.2.1 Proposal Substantiation. Unsubstantiated or misleading claims for any Prior Technical Experience evaluation element could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero points.

M-1.2.2 Proposal Compliance. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, submission requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Government determining the Offeror to be inacceptable and ineligible for award.

The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the Offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of proposal compliance.

M-1.2.3 Offeror Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines the Offeror to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any section of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

The Government will evaluate quality (IAW FAR 15.304(c)(2)) in this source selection through consideration of the Offeror’s Prior Technical Experience (PTE) as a factor. A two-step process will be used to determine which Offeror’s proposals are responsive and qualified to receive an award.

M-2.1 HTRO Step One - Responsiveness The Government will review the entire proposal for compliance with Section L-3.1. Any proposals received with a self-score less than the MTTR will not be evaluated. Any work samples that do not meet the criteria of Section L-3.2.1-L-3.2.3 will either be eliminated or have non-compliant pages removed prior to evaluation. Once the Government has determined the proposal to be responsive, the Government will then evaluate the Offeror’s Prior Technical Experience (PTE).

M-2.2 HTRO Step Two – Scoring Validation The Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology requires the Offeror to submit a self-rated score based on the objective criteria described in Section L. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s PTE (Section L-3.2) by validating the proposed Self-Rated Scoring Matrix (Section L Appendix B). The Government will validate the Offeror’s self-rated scores using the Offeror’s Cross Reference Matrix (Section L Appendix C) and the work samples provided. If the Government is unable to find the substantiating information within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc. of the work sample, the Government will not search further for the substantiating information. If the Government is unable to validate that Offeror’s self-rated score based on the work samples and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score, potentially down to zero points. The Government will only adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score downward, not upward. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government and are based upon the substantiation of the self-rated score provided by the Offeror. The Government-validated PTE score must demonstrate qualifying experience with a Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) of at least 80% of the maximum score.