Attachment_0004_-_Basis_of_Award_WBCD_II_052014_FINAL.docx

HQ0034-14-R-0104

Attachment 0004

Basis of Award

The Government intends to award a single, firm-fixed price award to the offeror whose quotation represents the best value and is the most advantageous to the Government. In determining best value, the Government may, in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 employ a tradeoff process allowing for award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated quote The government will evaluate Technical Capability, Past Performance and Price. The Technical Capability and Past Performance Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor.

The evaluation process will consist of the following steps:

1. All responsive quotes will be evaluated using the Technical Capability Performance Evaluation Ratings for Factor 1 - Technical Capability.

2. If the Offeror’s Technical Capability rating is “Acceptable” or better, then the offeror’s Past Performance will be evaluated using the Past Performance Ratings outlined herein.

3. Of all remaining Offeror’s, if Past Performance Confidence Rating assessment is “Limited” or better, then price will evaluated in accordance with this RFQ.

4. Thereafter, the Contracting Officer will make an award to the offeror representing the best value to the Government. The offeror’s initial quotation should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to request revisions if the Contracting Officer later determines the need. Offeror’s are advised that the award may not be made to the lowest priced, nor the highest technically rated offeror.

1. Factor 1 - Technical Capability: The Technical Capability Factor is equally as important as Past Performance. The proposals will be evaluated on the following criteria. The rating criteria are shown in descending order of importance:

1. Technical Approach*

The government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the work and any anticipated difficulties and problem areas, including creativity and thoroughness to include an understanding of the PWS and the specific tasks and planned execution of the project. The government will also evaluate the offeror’s Phase-In plan to conduct a smooth transition and minimize start up risks in accordance with PWS section 4.8.1.

1. Management Plan*

The government will assess the offeror’s understanding of the management requirements to include the offeror’s ability to perform the required activities and provide the required deliverables in accordance with the PWS. The management plan must include proposed organization structure to include teaming arrangements, the project plan in accordance with section 3.4.1. of the PWS, and the ability to implement and follow the proposed quality control plan as stated in section 4.5 of the PWS.

The phase-out plan does not need to be submitted with the proposal in accordance with PWS part 4.8.2.

1. Staffing Qualifications and Experience*

The Government will assess the offeror’s ability to provide all of the subject matter expertise required by PWS section 1.3, section 2.5 and the subjects listed in Attachment 0006, Course Description and Refresh List. The government will evaluate contractor personnel resumes with the subject matter requirements and expertise requirements listed in PWS section 1.3 to confirm that the staff, as a whole, has the required subject matter expertise. When viewed as a whole the resumes of the proposed personnel shall provide all of the subject matter expertise identified in PWS section 1.3, section 2.5 and attachment 0006. Gaps in the proposed contractors personnel in any of these areas shall be evaluated as a weakness. The Program Manager’s resume will be evaluated to ensure it meets the minimum experience requirements.

*Sub-factors (a), (b), and (c) of Factor 1 above are of equal importance and will not be individually rated.

1. Factor 2 – Past Performance:

1. Only Offeror’s receiving an Acceptable (or better) rating in Technical Capability, will be evaluated for Past Performance. Offeror’s receiving less than an Acceptable rating in Technical Capability will not be evaluated for Past Performance and will not be further evaluated or considered for award. Past performance projects will be assigned a relevancy rating ranging from “Very Relevant” to “Not Relevant.” Projects determined “Not Relevant” will not be considered. The Government will then determine an overall performance “Confidence” rating as defined below. “Confidence” for Past Performance is an assessment of the offeror’s demonstrated ability to successfully perform the requirements of the contract based on how well they have performed on recent, relevant contracts.

i. Offeror’s will be evaluated in part the quality of their past performance for the contracts they have identified that are currently on-going or have been completed within three (3) years from the closing date of this RFQ. Projects performed as the prime will be considered more favorably in the evaluation of past performance than projects performed as a subcontractor. Projects working with the DoD will be rated higher.

ii. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past performance in “recent” and “relevant” contract efforts. With regard to past performance, the term “Offeror” includes the prime contractor, subcontractors and/or teammates. “Recent” means contracts that are on-going or have been completed within three (3) years from the closing date of this RFQ. “Relevant” means performance of work similar in size and scope under similar conditions.

iii. Government reserves the right to contact and verify past performance information with references provided on the Past Performance Questionnaires, and to use any other past performance information available. Additionally, past performance data may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems, other Government departments and agencies, program managers, contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government (including commercial sources) including references other than those identified by the offeror. Offeror’s will be given the opportunity to address any negative performance information resulting from the past performance assessment inquiries.

iv. Offeror’s without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be rated “Unknown Confidence” on Factor 2 – Past Performance.

1. Factor 3 - Price Price will be evaluated separately from past performance and other non-price factors, and will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

TECHNICAL CAPAPBILITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Factors 1 will be rated using the following rating scale

1. Outstanding - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

1. Good - Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

1. Acceptable -Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

1. Marginal - Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. (Note: An Offeror with a final rating of marginal is not eligible for award)

1. Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable. (Note: An Offeror with a final rating of unacceptable is not eligible for award)

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING

i. Relevancy: The following definitions will be used for the relevancy ratings:

a. Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

b. Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c. Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

d. Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

e. Neutral: No record exists - neither favorably nor unfavorably.

ii. Confidence: The following definitions will be used for the confidence ratings of the Past Performance factor (Factor 2):

a. Substantial: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

b. Satisfactory: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a satisfactory expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

c. Limited: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

d. No Confidence: based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. (Note: An offeror with a final rating of No Confidence is not eligible for award).

e. Unknown: No relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.