Amended SECTION M.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE

The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference (by Citation Number, Title, and Date) in accordance with the FAR provision at FAR "52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section L of this solicitation.

See FAR 52.252-1 for an internet address (if specified) for electronic access to the full text of a provision.

NUMBER TITLE DATE

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS JUL 1990

M.2 EVALUATION -- GENERAL

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the applicable FAR regulations. Evaluation is performed to determine the offeror's understanding of the work to be performed, potential for completing the work as specified in the solicitation, price/cost completion, reasonableness, and ranking with competing offerors.

Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified in L.6 will not be evaluated by the Government.

The proposals will be evaluated against the technical criteria set forth in M.5. Deviations/exceptions taken to this solicitation will not necessarily cause a proposal to be considered unacceptable. However, a large number of deviations/exceptions, or one (1) or more significant deviations/exceptions may result in the rejection of the proposal as unacceptable.

Award may be made without discussion of proposals received. Offerors are, therefore, requested to initially submit proposals to the government on the most favorable terms from both a technical and cost/price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to make no award as a result of this solicitation.

The past performance and company experience of the offeror will be considered in evaluation and selection. Omissions and/or inaccurate or inadequate response could have a negative effect on the overall evaluation. An in-depth review is made to determine the relative merits of the offeror's proposal and of the company itself. Past performance and company experience will be evaluated from both a technical and business viewpoint.

By past performance, the Government means an offeror's record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship; the offeror's adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror's reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the offeror's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

In investigating an offeror's past performance, the Government will consider information in the offeror's proposal and information obtained from other sources, including past and present customers and their employees; other government agencies, including state and local agencies; consumer protection organizations and better business bureaus; former subcontractors; and others who may have pertinent information. Past and present customers may be randomly selected out of each offeror's proposal. The point of contact for each of these customers may then be contacted by the technical evaluation panel and asked a standard set of predetermined questions regarding the offeror's performance. A copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire is included as Attachment to the solicitation.

Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based on absolute standards of acceptable performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of services at fair and reasonable prices.

The Government reserves the right to look into all or a portion of the offeror’s references, and collect data through the past performance questionnaire or telephone (call) listed references, or from other sources.

The Government also reserves the right to consider an offeror’s past performance as a subcontractor.

Company experience is considered to be the accomplishment of work which is comparable in nature, size and complexity to the immediate requirement. All information submitted shall be directly relatable experience of the "Proposing Entity" which has been designated as that organizational element responsible for executing the proposal and for performing under the proposed award. The person signing the proposal must have the authority to commit the offeror to all the provisions of the proposal.

The Government is not restricted from evaluating and considering other relevant Past Performance information in its possession, such as that in automated past performance reporting systems, and may contact references for any information that comes into its possession.

Evaluation will be directed at the organizational unit designated as the proposing entity. In those instances where the proposing entity does not have directly relatable experience, such as a newly formed Joint Venture or the establishment of a new organizational unit within an existing company, the offeror may provide data indicating the experiences of the organization elements being grouped together to comprise the new organizational unit. This information shall be clearly and carefully described as "General Company Information" of the proposing entity.

M.3 EVALUATION AND AWARD

The Government may award the contract(s) based on the initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. Accordingly, each offeror shall submit its initial proposal using the most favorable terms to the Government from a technical and cost/price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions.

It is the Government's intention to award a contract(s) to the offeror(s) whose proposal is determined to represent the Best Value to the Government. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. If technical proposal evaluation ratings are close between the offerors, cost/price may become more important in the selection process. Techncial proposals will be evaluated against the technical criteria identified in Section M.5, which are listed in descending order of importance.

M.4 COST/PRICE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Adequate price competition is expected for this acquisition. A price analysis will be performed on the total evaluated burdened labor rates proposed price for all three (3) years. The hourly rates for the professional positions will also be reviewed to determine if they are appropriate for the work being performed and to ensure that the contractor can retain and/or employ the positions at the proposed rates.

No point score will be applied. Cost/price will also be used as an aid in determining an offeror's understanding of the requirements of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the low priced offeror(s).

M.5 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS/CRITERIA

All information provided in the offeror's proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria listed in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach and Technical Experience –

Technical Approach- The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the SOW and the requirements which presents an efficient and realistic approach to meet the proposed requirement.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach on how each aspect of the SOW is to be accomplished. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s in depth technical understanding and ability to meet the SOW requirements. The Government will evaluate offeror’s understanding of how the project is to be organized and the technical capability of the offeror to meet it. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to determine if it reflects a clear understanding of the nature of the work to be undertaken. The Government will evaluate the offerors ability to interpret the tasks within the SOW and perform the functions. The offeror's Technical Approach shall be evaluated to determine its adequacy, completeness, comprehensiveness and its probability for the successful completion of all contract tasks and requirements in an efficient and effective manner. The Technical Approach will be evaluated for its ability to interpret the tasks within the SOW and perform those functions.

Technical Experience-The government will evaluate the offeror’s technical experience to perform the tasks listed in the SOW and has technical experience in the field of disaster response, especially in the area Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Explosion Response. The government will evaluate how the offeror’s previous experiences by both the company and company employees will benefit this requirement. The Government will evaluate the breadth of each offeror's company experience in performing and managing projects that are similar in nature, size, and complexity to the immediate requirement. The government will evaluate the Offerors reference previous projects and past contracts. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s identified and discuss problems, issues, short turnarounds that occurred and the remedies taken.

Factor 2-Key Personnel/Staffing Plan

Key Personnel Experience/Qualifications:

Proposals will be evaluated on the identification, resumes and position descriptions of proposed key personnel, including Program Manager and other key personnel proposed by the offeror, which may include consultants and other professionals. Proposals will be evaluated for the rationale for positions and individuals designated as key (i.e., why the offeror determined the position(s) to be key). The proposed key personnel will be evaluated for their understanding of the program scope and objectives as well as relevant experience. Proposals will be evaluated for their understanding of the importance of assigning experienced, key personnel in the completion of the contract. Resumes for proposed key personnel will be evaluated for information on education, background, recent/relevant experience, and unique qualifications applicable to the performance of this requirement. Letters of commitment key personnel that are not currently employees of the offeror or its proposed subcontractors will be evaluated.

The staffing plan will be evaluated on its description of how the offeror will recruit, train, retain and otherwise maintain a qualified work force for this requirement as well as the proposed plan to supervise and coordinate its staff. The plan will be evaluated on the number, skill mix, levels of expertise and qualification for the proposed positions. The duties and responsibilities for each position proposed will be evaluated. The proposal will be evaluated on how it will utilize and ascertain consultants, subcontractors, etc. to perform the task areas of the SOW. The description of the proposed labor mix will be evaluated on how it demonstrates that the proposed staff will have the necessary skills and expertise necessary for successful contract performance. Proposals will be evaluated for a prior record of recruiting and retention success for similar contracts.

Proposals will be evaluated for having the functional responsibilities, education and experience to perform the tasks, and the ability to obtain consultants, subcontractors and SMES when identified, and demonstrate its record of recruiting and retaining staff for similar contracts.

Factor 3- Past Performance

The Past Performance narratives provided by the offerors will be reviewed to determine the relevance of Past Performance for prior projects. References provided by the offerors for relevant Past Performance will be contacted to obtain information on the quality of the offeror’s performance on projects similar in size, type, content, scope and complexity to this requirement. The Government will make 2 attempts at contacting references.

In addition to contacting the references supplied by the offeror, the government may obtain past performance information from other sources, such as other government personnel or agencies, Past Performance databases, and other sources.

The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance in providing services that are comparable in contract size, type, content , scope and complexity to this requirement. The Government will consider the offeror's representation of the quality of work performed, viability of work completed, ability to meet or adhere to the established time schedule, ability to accomplish work within budget, effectiveness of management, cooperation and responsiveness to previous clients, and the overall quality of work and concern for customer satisfaction.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In this case, the offeror will be assigned a neutral rating for past performance.

Factor 4-Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the management approach for the following: 1) ramp up strategy to assume full performance of the contract in a timely, efficient and cost effective manner; 2) its capacity to provide all of the technical components of the work and demonstrate corporate commitment to achieve the overall program objectives; and 3) in depth management understanding and ability to accomplish administration requirements after task order award.

The Government will utilize the following Technical Ratings for the Technical Evaluation portion (Factor 1, 2, and 4) of the submission.

Technical Merit (evaluation factors) shall be rated as follows:

a. OUTSTANDING –The offeror provides an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive understanding of the requirements for the technical evaluation factor. The offeror has clearly demonstrated that it will provide services/deliverables of exceptional quality in a timely and efficient manner. Major strengths are identified, exceptional features or innovations that should substantially benefit the program/requirement. No weaknesses, significant weaknesses or deficiencies identified. The risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

b. GOOD - The offeror provides a thorough understanding of the requirements for the technical evaluation factor. Major and/or minor strengths are identified which indicate benefits to the program/requirement. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths.

Uncorrected weaknesses will not significantly impact the offeror’s ability to provide the services/products required. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

c. SATISFACTORY – The offeror indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements for the technical evaluation factor. There are few, if any, exceptional aspects to benefit the program/requirement. Weaknesses are generally offset by strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

d. UNSATISFACTORY – The offeror indicates a lack of understanding of the requirements for the technical evaluation factor. Numerous significant weakneses or deficiencies are identified. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high. A major rewrite for the factor is required to correct significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Past performance factor shall be rated as follows:

a. OUTSTANDING. Based on an offeror’s past performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

b. SATISFACTORY. Based on an offeror’s past performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

c. UNSATISFACTORY. Based on an offeror’s past performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

d. NEUTRAL. No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the offeror or key panel members/subcontractors or their key personnel. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

M.6 TOP SECRET CLEARANCE DOCUMENTATION

Offerors will be determined acceptable/non acceptable regarding whether it currently has a Top Secret Facility Clearance. Offerors shall provide a copy of the Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) facility verification or DOE Facility Data and Approval Record facility verification for their own company, and any proposed subcontractors or consultants that possess clearances. Offerors shall provide both company/facility security clearances and individual security clearances required to support the programs and tasks identified in the SOW at time the proposal is submitted and to maintain clearances after award.

M.7 AWARD

Until a formal notice of award is issued, no communication by the Government, either written or oral, shall be interpreted as a promise that an award will be made. No cost chargeable to the prospective contract can be incurred before receipt of a fully executed contract or other specific written authorization from the Contracting Officer.