Attch_04_Evlauation_Factors.pdf

ATTACHMENT 4: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation Factors for Award

1.1. EVALUATION OF QUOTES

1.1.1. As authorized at FAR 12.203, and allowed by FAR 13 the process will utilize the Lowest

Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection process at FAR 15.101-2. In accordance with

FAR Subpart 15.1, “The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(iii), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with 15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a small business’ past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with the procedures contained in Subpart 19.6 and 15 U.S.C. 637(b)(7)).

1.1.2. Tradeoffs are not permitted.

1.1.3. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

1.1.4. Exchanges may occur

1.1.5. The burden of proof as to cost rests with the offeror. The offeror’s quote is presumed to represent his best efforts to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost should be explained in the quote.

Unexplained inconsistencies resulting from the offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature and scope of the work required or lack of financial ability to perform the contract may be grounds for rejection of the quote.

1.1.4. The offerors will prepare quotes based upon the description of the PWS.

1.2. EVALUATION FACTORS

1.2.1.

Evaluation Factor and Sub-factors. The evaluation will be based on an integrated assessment of general considerations consisting of Technical Expertise (which includes Capability and Quality

Control), Past Performance and Price to determine the Offeror whose quote contains a combination offering the Best Value to the Government. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor and each of the

Technical Sub-factors.

1. Technical Expertise

Sub-factor A – Capability – The employee being proposed meets the minimum standards for qualifications, experience and skills.

Sub-factor B – Quality Control

Sub-Factor C – Security Requirements http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P241_37849 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P270_41811 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P270_41811 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/19.htm#P579_121609

2. Past Performance

3. Price

THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS WHICH

WILL BE

USED FOR EVALUATION/SELECTION:

1.3.1 Factor I: Technical Expertise. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the

Offeror demonstrates the ability to perform the requirements described in the PWS.

1.3.1.1. Sub-Factor A – Capability: The resume of the person submitted by the offeror shall be evaluated for completeness and whether or not it meets all of the minimum requirements for experience and skills listed in the PWS.

1.3.1.1.a. The minimum acceptability standards for this sub-factor are-

-Management Approach shall account for communication between Government and contractor, for the purpose of accomplishing requirements. At a minimum the approach to communication has to be practical and not a hindrance to the Government’s mission.

-Management Approach shall account for communication between contractor and contractor’s employee, for the purpose of accomplishing requirements. At a minimum the approach to communication has to be practical and not a hindrance to the Government’s mission.

-Management Approach shall account for tracking of employee’s absences, so that

Government receives performance of the 1880 hours each period of performance and all deliverables. At a minimum the tracking approach has to be able to account for all of the employee’s absences and those absences communicated to the Government. This is not a process for Government approval of leave. It is solely for the purpose of tracking the 1880 hours.

- Letter of Consent and Intent included, if applicable

- Bachelor’s degree from an accredited university.

- At least three years of relevant work experience supporting the Department of Defense.

- At least 2 months experience with all Microsoft Office applications, including database development and maintenance with Microsoft Access, Visual Basic code development and debugging, and project planning/tracking with Microsoft Project.

- At least 3 months experience with Drupal Content Management System

- At least 3 months experience with Adobe CC2015 application.

- At least 3 months experience with the managing and administration of a SharePoint portal.

1.3.1.2. Sub-Factor B – Quality Control Plan (QCP): The QCP must demonstrate the contractor's ability to provide oversight, measurements, and reporting processes to ensure compliance with all contract requirements. The Quality Control Plan must include all elements in the PWS and Performance Requirements Summary; to include a comprehensive and effective program that complies with all requirements specified in the PWS.

1.3.1.2.a. The minimum acceptability standard for this sub-factor is-

- At a minimum, the contractor shall develop quality control procedures that address the areas identified in Technical Exhibit 1, “Performance Requirements Summary.”

1.3.1.3 Sub-Factor C – Security Requirements: An active SECRET clearance is required.

The Contractor is required to have an active FACILITY clearance at the time of quote/quote submission

1.3.1.3.a. The minimum acceptability standards for this sub-factor are-

- The Contractor is required to have an active FACILITY clearance at the time of quote/proposal submission.

- The proposed employee shall have an active SECRET clearance at the time of proposal.

1.4. Factor II: Past Performance. Past performance information will be obtained from references, provided by the offeror, who complete the Past Performance Questionnaire and from other sources known to the Government or learned of in the course of the evaluation. Each offeror will be evaluated on performance under existing and prior contracts for similar services.

Performance information will be used for both responsibility determinations and as an evaluation factor. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size and complexity of the contract under consideration. The Government may contact the references provided in the offer, former customers, etc. to enquire about past performance to include, but not limited to, its reputation for conforming to terms and conditions, for accurately estimating and controlling costs, for adherence to contract schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance); for reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction. The Government may contact references other than those identified by the offeror.

1.4.1. Past performance shall be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each LPTA source selection.

Therefore, the solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract performance history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the requirements of the contract that is contemplated to be awarded as a result of the evaluation of quotes in the current procurement.

1.4.2.1 For this specific acquisition, current is defined as a contract or subcontract in-progress or completed within the last three (3) years. If the Offeror has not had Government contracts within the last three (3) years, information on relevant subcontracts and /or commercial contracts may be submitted instead. The information must be clear as to whether the work by the Offeror was done as a prime contractor or a subcontractor.

1.4.2.1.1 For this specific acquisition, relevant is defined as a contract that is of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements as set forth in this solicitation. Offerors who describe similar contracts and subcontracts should provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts to the requirements of this solicitation and Statement of Work.

Data provided shall include contract number, Government point of contact and phone number.

1.4.2.2 Second, the past performance evaluation shall determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

1.4.2.3 The Offeror may provide any information that would reflect on the quality of service provided. The Government reserves the right to determine the relevancy of such information and to verify statements and representations made in an offeror’s quote. Any information provided must be in sufficient detail with points of contact to enable the Government to do an evaluation in accordance with the Past Performance sub factors listed in the solicitation. Summary lists of contracts or incomplete data may not be considered. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the

Offeror.

1.4.2.4 Each offeror has the opportunity to provide in its quote any information regarding its past performance of contracts similar to the Government’s requirement that it would like the

Government to consider. Such information may be in the nature of: (1) additional information which the Government has readily available (i.e. PPIRS or Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS)), (2) information which the offeror considers essential to the

Government’s evaluation of Past Performance or (3) explanatory information of substandard or poor performance and the corrective actions taken to prevent a recurrence.

1.4.2.5 The Government intends to review the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS) and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts. The Government may also review other relevant past performance information contained in either local or other

Defense Security Cooperation Agency office files or other Government sources.

1.4.2.6 Past Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement may be provided as past performance submissions.

1.4.2.7 Failure of the offeror to submit complete Past Performance information shall be considered as certification (by signature on the quote) that the offeror has no past performance of like or similar items for the Government to evaluate.

1.4.2.8 In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

1.4.3 To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “acceptable” must be achieved for the Past Performance Factor.

1.5. FACTOR: Price: The entries the offerors make on the Contract Schedule for the base period and each option period will be used for price evaluation. The proposed cost shall be commensurate with the offeror’s technical approach. Price will be evaluated and weighted, but not scored. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

1.5.1. In case of a discrepancy resulting from the Unit Price entered by the offeror multiplied by the quantity entered by the Government not resulting in the calculated Amount entered by the offeror, the unit price entered by the offeror shall take precedence over any calculated total

Amount entered for a CLIN, by the offeror. The Government shall multiply the offeror’s proposed unit price by the estimated quantity entered by the Government in order to calculate the offeror’s total amount for each CLIN. It is this calculated total that will be used to determine the offeror’s price to be evaluated.

1.5.2. The Government will not use the unit price beyond two (2) decimal places. After two decimal places the price shall be appropriately rounded up or down. For example, a unit price of

$1.5666 will result in the Government using a unit price of $1.57.

1.5.3 Since the ceiling of the Cost Reimbursement CLIN for travel shall be established by the

Government and all quotes shall include same value, only the FFP portion shall be evaluated.

When contracting on a firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis since competition normally establishes price reasonableness, and a cost analysis need not be performed (see FAR 15.305(a)(1)). Although in exceptional cases when the determination of fair and reasonable price requires additional information, the contracting officer may conduct analysis to support the determination of whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

1.6. QUOTE EVALUATION:

1.6.1. With the approval of the Source Selection Authority (SSA), the contracting officer may establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with all of the most highly rated quotes, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR

15.306(c)(2). At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final quote revision.

1.6.2. The SSA shall ensure the quotes are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

1.7. AWARD PROCEDURES:

1.7.1. The Government intends to award to one offeror.

1.7.2 The SSA shall select the source whose quote offers the lowest evaluated price and for which all non-price factors are rated as Acceptable in accordance with established criteria in the solicitation.