Attachment_04_Evaluation_Factors_-_Minimum_Acceptability_Standards.doc.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS - MINIMUM ACCEPTABILITY STANDARDS

A. The process will utilize the best value process of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). In accordance with FAR 15.101-2, LPTA is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. When using the lowest price technically acceptable process, the following apply:

(1) The evaluation factors and significant sub-factors that establish the minimum acceptability standards 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 minimum 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)).

(2) Tradeoffs are not permitted.

(3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost price factors. The lowest priced offer shall be evaluated first. If it is determined to be technically acceptable the evaluation process shall cease, pending a determination the offered price is fair and reasonable.

Should the lowest priced offer be determined to be technically unacceptable or the offered price determined not to be fair and reasonable, the process shall continue with the next lowest priced offer and so on until an offer is determined to be technically acceptable at a fair and reasonable price.

(4) Exchanges may occur in accordance with FAR 15.306.

B. Technical capability, Past Performance and Price are the factors that will be evaluated.

Evaluation factors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant the solicitation’s requirements. They are the uniform baseline against which each offeror’s proposal is evaluated allowing the Government to make a determination of acceptability. The evaluation factors/minimum acceptability requirements shall be set forth in the solicitation in enough depth to communicate what will be evaluated. The evaluation factors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors. Factors are to be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. These factors and will identify the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance.

Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-price/price factors. In order to be considered for award, the offer must be determined “acceptable” in every non-price factor.

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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P286_46346

1) Factor 1: Technical Capability

Management/Performance Approach Plan, the ability to provide technically qualified inspector to meet the qualification and experience requirement in the PWS section 1.5. Understanding of the work to be performed, and Quality Control Plan. .

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Sub-Factor 1A – Management/Performance Approach Plan, Education and experience of Inspector, ability to travel OCONUS.

Sub-Factor 1B – Understanding the work

Sub-Factor 1C - Quality Control Plan

Minimum requirements to be acceptable:

a. Management/Performance Approach document that addresses/schedules performance of each of the tasks at the listed sections and paragraphs of the PWS;

b. Contractor must have a minimum of three (3) years of experience in cargo inspection or similar service;

c. Inspector shall have a High School Diploma or equivalent;

d. Inspector possess Knowledge of the Denton Program and the Funded Transportation

Program as outlined in the Humanitarian Assistance Transportation Program Guidelines.

http://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instructions/

e. Inspector shall have a minimum of three years total work experience similar to the requirement stated in the PWS.

f. Inspector have the ability to get passport to conduct inspection Outside of the Continental

United States (OCONUS).

Sub-Factor 1B – Understanding the Work

a. The proposal shall provide an overall methodology and organization structure that indicates a clear understanding of the work to be performed and the support required from the contractor organization;

Sub-Factor 1C - Quality Control Plan

The proposal will include a detailed Quality Control Plan that ensure services are performed in accordance with the PWS section 6.

Quality Control Plan (QCP): The QCP shall include the following:

1. Inspection System.

2. Deficiency Prevention.

3. Inspection Record.

http://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instructions/

2) Factor 2: Past Performance. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

Past performance will initially be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. “Recent” 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 recent commercial contracts and subcontracts 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. “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 PWS.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor 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.

NOTE: 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.”

3) Factor 3 Price:

1. A proposal analysis, of the total proposed price of the apparent lowest priced technically acceptable offer, shall be conducted to ensure the price is fair and reasonable. Per source selection policy, all offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)). Offers may be rejected if the contracting officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2. The LPTA procedure is applied to known, firm requirements, usually readily available in the commercial marketplace where a fair and reasonable price determination is based on adequate price competition. Therefore, an analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) (2) (i) shall be conducted, should adequate competition exist. Should competition not be adequate, one or more of the procedures at FAR 15.404-1(b) (2) (ii) or (iv) or (v) shall be used. The additional procedures are “Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the

Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items.”; “Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.” and “Comparison of proposed prices with independent

Government cost estimates.”, respectively.

3. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, all options shall be evaluated for the purpose of award. The

Government may determine that and offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).