Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 NOTICE TO PROPOSERS

M.2 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

M.3 UNBALANCED PRICE PROPOSALS

M.4 UNACCEPTABLE PROPOSALS

M.5 BASIS OF AWARD

M.6 EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA

M.7 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M.8 MOST FAVORABLE PROPOSAL

M.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRICE AND NON-PRICE FACTORS

M.1 NOTICE TO PROPOSERS

The Government intends to award a single one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award; to negotiate with any or all proposers; and to award to the proposer submitting the proposal determined by the Government to be the most advantageous to the Government. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable price and technical terms. Offeror should not assume they will be contracted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss, or revise their proposals.

M.2 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 90)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interest, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M.3 UNBALANCED PRICE PROPOSALS

Any price proposal that is materially unbalanced may be rejected as unacceptable. An offer is unbalanced when it is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and prices which are significantly overstated for other work.

M.4 UNACCEPTABLE PROPOSALS

Any proposal may be construed as an unacceptable proposal and ineligible for consideration if an Offeror does not comply with the requirements of the solicitation. The failure to comply with the technical features or acknowledge receipt of amendments is common causes for holding proposals unacceptable.

Other examples of unacceptable proposals are those that contain major deficiencies, omissions, or out-of-line costs which discussions with the Offeror could not reasonably be expected to cure or a proposal that does not represent a reasonable effort to address itself to the essential requirements of the solicitation.

M.5 BASIS OF AWARD

a. Written proposal materials will be received from Offerors and evaluated by Government personnel against the factors set forth in paragraph M.7 below.

b. If the Government determines an award cannot be made without discussions, a competitive range determination will be made. A competitive range will be established consisting of all proposals determined under the evaluation factors to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. Those Offerors whose proposals are not within the competitive range will be so notified; further discussions with those Offerors are not contemplated and any revisions of their proposals will not be considered.

c. Written or oral discussions may be conducted with all responsible Offerors who submit proposals within the competitive range. However, the Government reserves the right to make an award without additional discussions based on initial proposals. The Offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered, will be selected for award.

Note: The Government will not issue an award to an offeror who presents a significantly higher overall price to achieve only slightly superior performance capabilities.

M.6 EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA

a. All proposals submitted will be evaluated in accordance with M.7, Evaluation Basis for Award. Because of the numerous proposals anticipated, uniformity of proposals is essential to assure fair and accurate assessment. Proposals must conform to all of the terms and conditions contained in the solicitation. Proposals that do not conform to all of the requirements expressed in this solicitation may be considered unacceptable.

b. Prospective offerors are forewarned that an acceptable proposal with the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher priced proposal affords the Government a greater overall benefit.

c. A proposal must be rated at least Acceptable (Satisfactory) in order to be eligible for

Award.

d. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as, but not limited to, terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements including those listed in M.7 below.

M.7 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

Non-Price Factors consist of Factors 1 through 4, Technical, and Factor 5, Past Performance

Each Offeror's technical proposal will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of Section C, Descriptions/Specifications/Work Statement and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. Proposal risk will be a part of the criteria considered in the acceptability decision. Proposal risk assesses the risk associated with the Offeror's proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of this solicitation. Offerors may be determined unacceptable, even though the minimum requirements are met, if the proposed approach poses too great a risk. The following criteria will be evaluated as part of the technical evaluation for this solicitation:

Factor 1: Technical – Method of Operation. Offerors shall clearly demonstrate their understanding of the scope of work by addressing key aspects of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the requirements of furnishing a Service Plan (see Section C.2.1.1). A mere reiteration of the RFP requirements is not acceptable. The plan shall include and address, but is not limited to, the following:

• The offeror's methodology and approach for managing and performing the requirements specified in Section C in sufficient detail for an evaluation to be made.

• A written summary of experience in similar efforts that demonstrates technical expertise and management of the multiple service areas.

• The offeror’s understanding of the scope of work by illustrating their proposed allocation of resources and level of effort by labor category.

• Proposed subcontractors, facilities, vehicles, equipment, and supplies and describe how facilities, equipment, and supplies will be maintained and how they will be replaced.

Factor 2: Technical – Quality Control. Offerors shall provide all aspects of the required services with respect to quality assurance and an understanding of the Quality Control Plan and program (See PWS Section C.2.1.2). Offerors shall address inspection procedures and corrective processes. The offeror shall include and address, but is not limited to, the following:

• key areas to be monitored

• inspection procedures and corrective processes

• the relationship of management to Quality Control

• the specific duties and responsibilities of the Quality Control representative

• Describe the same above information for any subcontractor(s) that are projected to be used during the performance of this contract.

Factor 3 – Technical – Management and Administration. Offerors shall clearly demonstrate a feasible approach for controlling and managing the entire project and describe the Offeror's general management and administration structure. The offeror shall include and address, but is not limited to, the following:

• Lines of authority, supervision, and accountability of overall management, administration, and supervision to perform the services. Provide organizational chart reflecting staffing numbers at lowest level.

• Management, control, and distribution of personnel, such as (i) the potential sources of personnel and how these employees will be provided in a timely fashion; (ii) the procedures that will ensure that personnel are available for work; and (iii) identify the number of contract personnel by labor category to include managers.

• Management and control of Government furnished property, facilities, and equipment.

• Phase-In/Orientation, Phase-Out, and Contingency Plans, to include time schedule for all key events and responsibilities.

• Record keeping and reporting procedures

Factor 4: Technical – Key Personnel Qualifications. Note: The Government considers the following positions key personnel, at a minimum: Project Manager, Alternate Project Manager, and Quality Control Technician. The offeror shall submit information on the proposed management team which they deem optimum for management of the program outlined in the solicitation; with consideration of those positions the Government deems key personnel. The proposal shall outline the rationale why the proposed team should be considered the best value to the Government. Key Personnel (Project Manager, Alternate Project Manager, and Quality Control Technician) shall each have experience in one or more of the following positions: Project Manager, Alternate Project Manager or Quality Control Technician. The offeror shall submit a detailed resume depicting and quantifying all applicable work experience as it pertains to the statement of work for this solicitation for each of the following key personnel positions.

• Project Manager: Resume shall clearly demonstrate experience and skillset of the individuals proposed and how closely it relates to the following criteria deemed optimum by the Government for the position: 1) Experience as a Project Manager on Federal contracts; 2) Experience with Federal administrative processes; 3) Demonstrated experience and a working knowledge typical of work under this contract (i.e. Firearms, vehicle maintenance, scheduling, transportation, inventory, etc.); 4) Documentation of the highest level of education completed.

• Alternate Project Manager: Resume shall demonstrate experience and skillset of the individuals proposed and how closely it relates to the following criteria deemed optimum by the Government for the position: 1) Experience as an Alternate Project Manager on Federal contracts; 2) Experience with Federal administrative processes; 3) Demonstrated experience and a working knowledge typical of work under this contract (i.e. Firearms, vehicle maintenance, scheduling, transportation, inventory, etc.); 4) Documentation of the highest level of education completed.

• Quality Control Technician: Resume shall clearly demonstrate experience and skillset of the individuals proposed and how closely it relates to the following criteria deemed optimum by the Government for the position: A minimum of two (2) years QC/Lead Technician experience utilizing formal QC systems/processed in industry and/or business related to functions to be performed under this requirement (i.e. Firearms, vehicle maintenance, scheduling, inventory, transportation, etc.

Factor 5: Past Performance The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. The evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluation favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Offerors may identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. Offerors shall provide information on problems encountered on the identified contract including corrective actions taken.

NOTE: If there are extenuating circumstances concerning any negative past performance, provide background information and references for validation.

Information utilized may be obtained from references listed in the proposal, as well as from other sources known to the Government. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. Evaluation of past performance will include consideration of overall customer satisfaction and conclusions of informed judgment.

Offeror will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. NOTE: In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(e), the Government “shall not reveal the names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance.” Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including, but not limited to, the number and severity of problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

If an Offeror, or the proposed key employees of the Offeror, does not have a past performance history deemed relevant to this solicitation, the Offeror will receive a neutral rating. However, the proposal of an Offeror with no relevant past performance history, while rated neutral in past performance may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposals of other offers.

Past performance information will also be considered regarding any critical subcontractors and key personnel. Past performance of the prime contractor will receive greater consideration than subcontractors.

Factor: Price/Cost

Offerors shall submit audited company financial statements for the last three annual reporting periods. Financial statements will be in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. If audited company financial statements are not available, the chief financial officer shall provide a formal statement attesting to the accuracy of the financial information provided.

Offerors shall submit a detailed discussion, which demonstrates the company’s proposed approach to having sufficient resources to enter into and sustain the effort proposed. Include in this information a description of the financial resources that presently exist within the company to support this effort, whether outside financial support must be obtained, and if so, how it will be obtained and from what sources.

Include documentation to substantiate outside financial support. The information will be for a determination of responsibility only and shall not be used in proposal evaluation.

Offerors shall submit a detailed pricing proposal that demonstrates a clear understanding of the required level of effort to support the multiple services as described in Section C of the Performance Work Statement. The pricing proposal shall at a minimum provide proposed expenses associated with performance, such as labor, supplies, equipment, and general and administrative, overhead expenses, taxes, and profit.

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, total evaluated price, and balance in accordance with the following:

Reasonableness is evaluated by assessing the acceptability of the Offeror's methodology in developing price estimates. For the price proposals to be reasonable, it must represent a price that provides the best value to the government when consideration is given to pricing. The existence of adequate price competition will support a determination of reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, other techniques described in FAR 15.402 will be used. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for the basic requirements (basic award) and all options and other price-related issues. However, evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Submission of offers that are determined to be unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Contracting Officer may use price analysis and as necessary, other cost evaluation techniques outlined in FAR Part 15.305 to evaluate the price proposal, not only to determine whether it is reasonable, but to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. Price proposals will be evaluated by the assigned price evaluators independent of technical and past performance evaluation.

Unsupported or unreasonable price proposals may result in discussions with Offeror, or rejection of the proposal in its entirety.

M.8 MOST FAVORABLE PROPOSAL/AWARD

a. If discussions are necessary, the Government intends to have additional written discussions with all responsible Offerors whose proposals are determined to be within the competitive range.

However, Offerors are advised to submit their most favorable proposal initially because the Government reserves the right to award without additional discussions. The evaluated cost or price will become more important as the proposals become more equal in non-priced factors.

b. Offerors will be evaluated on an all or none basis inclusive of the option periods.

M.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRICE and NON-PRICE FACTORS

This acquisition will utilize a “Best Value” Trade Off Process source selection procedure to make an assessment for an award decision. As stated herein, evaluation factors are divided into two categories (Non-Price and Price): Non-Price Factors include Technical and Past Performance. The Non-Priced Factors are considered approximately equal in importance and when combined are approximately equal to price. Only those proposals deemed technically satisfactory or higher will be considered for award.

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all requirements set forth in the RFP and is deemed to offer the best value to the Government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

The following ratings apply to Non-Price Technical Factors:

Rating Definition

Excellent (E): Proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government.

Satisfactory (S): Proposal demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards. Acceptable solution. Few or no strengths.

Marginal (M): Proposal demonstrates shallow understanding of requirements and/or approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance.

Unsatisfactory (U): Proposal fails to meet the requirement; one or more deficiencies for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal.

The following ratings apply to Non-Price Past Performance Factor:

Rating Definition

Excellent (E): Above satisfactory performance record, work of similar size, scope and complexity. No doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory (S): Satisfactory performance record, work of similar size, scope or complexity. Little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral (N): No performance identifiable (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) and

(iv)).

Marginal (M): Some satisfactory and/or less performance record; and/or work not of similar size, scope or complexity. Substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unsatisfactory (U): Examples have a less than satisfactory performance record;

and/or work not of similar size, scope or complexity.

Extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.