Attachment_3_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_Solicitation_HSCGG314-T-PWH024.docx

ATTACHMENT 3 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION # HSCGG3-14-T-PWH024

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA)

a. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. This is a competitive LPTA best value source selection in which technical acceptability is considered the most important factor. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accepts all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All technically acceptable offerors, with satisfactory past performance, shall be treated equally except for their prices. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government intends to select ONE contractor for award of this effort. It is the Government’s intent to award the contract to the offeror whose proposal has the lowest evaluated price after determining technical acceptability for all two technical factors (i.e., the offeror’s proposal must receive a rating of Acceptable for all three factors).

For the purpose of award, the government shall evaluate offers based on the evaluation factors described below:

“Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable” Evaluation Standards

Acceptable

ALL of the minimum acceptable criteria are clearly met by the proposal. The offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. NOTE: Once the proposals have been determined to be “technically acceptable,” award will based on price only.

Unacceptable

Not all of the minimum acceptable criteria are met by the proposal. An unacceptable proposal contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW.

Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability:

Bidders must be qualified according to FAR 52.209-1, Qualification Requirements.

Factor 2 – Satisfactory Past Performance:

Have satisfactory past performance. Offerors shall not submit past performance information unless required as part of the response to Factor 3 – Price Evaluation. The government may seek relevant performance information on all responsive and otherwise Technically Acceptable Offerors through sources such as DCMA offices, CPARS or PPIRS or other government data bases and other sources that are available. The government shall not be limited in its search for performance data. The offeror shall not submit performance data for this factor. When performance is evaluated, the outcome is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory performance will disqualify an offeror from award.

Factor 3 - Price Evaluation.

The government shall conduct a price evaluation of all technically acceptable offers with Satisfactory past performance. The government will award the task order to the offeror who submits a technically Acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

b. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers:

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, or are unbalanced, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

c. Source Selection Decision:

The government shall select the source based upon a best value evaluation of the offeror’s technical acceptability, satisfactory past performance and price. The government shall choose the lowest realistically priced, responsive, with satisfactory performance, and technically acceptable offer for award.