Section M_LCS08R0001.DOC

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Charleston SC

HSFLCS08R0001

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTOR FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

No.

Title

Page No.

M.1

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

M-1 M.2

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

M-1 M.3

BASIS OF AWARD

M-1 M.4

UNACCEPTABLE PROPOSALS…………………………………………………………M-2

M.5

UNBALANCED PRICE PROPOSALS……………………………………………………M-2

M.6

EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA………………………………………………M-2

M.7

EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS………………………………………M-6

M.8

MOST FAVORABLE PROPOSAL………………………………………………………

M-9 M.9

DETERMINATION OF COMPETITIVE RANGE……………………………………..

M.10

AWARD………………………………………………………………………………….

M-10 M.1 52.252-1

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation of offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this address: http://www.arnet.gov/far 52.232-15 Progress Payment Not Included (Apr 1984) M.2 52.217-5

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, 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

BASIS OF AWARD

(a) Written proposal materials will be received from offerors. Written materials will be evaluated by the Government. All proposals received will be evaluated by Government personnel against the factors set forth in Section M.6 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 notified that their proposals are unacceptable. Further discussions with those offerors are not contemplated and any revisions of their proposals will not be considered.

(c) The offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered, will be selected for award. Price may become the determining factor, if in the Government’s judgment, two offeror’s are found to be substantially equal in technical merit.

(d) 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.

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 acknowledging receipt of amendments are common causes for holding proposals unacceptable. Other examples of unacceptable proposals are those which contain major deficiencies, omissions, or out-of-line costs which discussions with the offeror could not reasonably be expected to cure; or a proposal which does not represent a reasonable effort to address itself to the essential requirements of the solicitation.

M.5

UNBALANCED PRICE PROPOSALS

Any price proposal which 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.6

EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA

(a) The evaluation and award selection process will be an integrated assessment for a best value award. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and represents the best value to the Government considering the offerors technical, past performance and price/cost. Both technical and past performance is significantly more important than price/cost. The technical and past performance factors are of equal value. However, to be considered for award, an offeror must receive at least an overall rating of “Satisfactory” in the Past Performance factor. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, the Government will make a best value determination considering technical, past performance and price/cost factors. As proposals become more equal with regard to the technical and/or past performance factors, the price/cost factor will become more important. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest offer.

(b) Offerors are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with the contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must not merely parrot back the contractual requirements, but rather must provide convincing evidence in support of any conclusion statement relating to promised performance.

(c) All proposals submitted will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.7, Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors. Attention is called to Section L.7, which indicates the page limitation for the offeror’s proposal. 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 which do not conform to all of the requirements expressed in this solicitation may be considered unacceptable.

(d) Offerors are urged to ensure that their proposal is submitted on the most favorable terms and represents its best efforts to respond to the solicitation requirements. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price should be explained in the proposal. Unexplained inconsistencies resulting from the offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature and scope of the work required may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

(e) During the source selection process, the Government will assess the relative risks associated with each offeror and proposal. It is important to note the distinction between proposal risk and performance risk:

(1) Proposal Risk. Those risks associated with an offeror’s approach in meeting the Government requirements detailed in the solicitation.

(2) Performance Risk. Those risks associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance.

(f) The evaluation and award selection process will be a combination of technical and past performance ratings and the price proposal. Each technical sub-factor is described in greater detail in Section M.7. Technical sub-factors will be rated on an adjectival rating system with a rating from Outstanding to Unacceptable as follows:

Rating

Definition

Outstanding:

Proposal exceeds all requirements of the solicitation and the offeror has fully analyzed, evaluated, and defined these requirements in the proposal. The proposal fully and completely meets all expectations and sets forth plans and approaches that demonstrate the highest probability of obtaining superior service. There is a high probability of success and little or no risk that the offeror would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are no deficiencies or significant weaknesses.

Excellent:

Proposal exceeds some requirements of the solicitation. Procedures demonstrate that the offeror is able to interpret requirements and implement them in a clear, concise and logical manner. By the proposal, the offeror demonstrates an acute awareness of the significant factors that influence effective contract performance. The proposal shows strong promise and is effectively organized. There is a good probability of success and little or no risk that the offeror would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are no major deficiencies or significant weaknesses.

Satisfactory:

Proposal meets all requirements of the solicitation and is acceptable. Procedures are provided to the extent requested, and the key points raised by the applicable evaluation factors have been satisfactorily addressed in the proposal. The offeror demonstrates an understanding by a direct translation of the solicitation requirements in the offeror's proposal. There is little risk that the offeror would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are no deficiencies, but there may be minor weaknesses. If any weaknesses, they need not be corrected to make award.

Marginal:

The proposal is minimally acceptable. However, the offeror's interpretation of the solicitation requirements is so vague that it must be considered unsatisfactory as written. There are serious questions concerning the offeror's understanding of the solicitation requirements and to the planned approach. There are also serious doubts concerning whether the offeror can satisfactorily perform the services required under the contract. Proposal lacks essential information or is conflicting. The proposal contains deficiencies that will need to be corrected for further consideration. Proposal is unacceptable without resolving these deficiencies.

Unacceptable:

The proposal does not satisfy the requirements in the solicitation for an acceptable proposal. What was submitted lacks essential information, conflicting, or unacceptable to the Government. There is no reasonable likelihood of success; deficiencies are so major or extensive that a major revision or complete rewrite of the proposal would be necessary.

(g) The following Technical sub-factors provided with order of importance will be considered in evaluating the Technical proposal.

(1) Management Plan and Method of Operation

(2) Quality Control Plan

(3) Personnel Resources and Staffing

(4) Corporate Experience

(5) Environmental Management & Safety Plan

(6) Property Control Plan

(7) Risk

(h) Past Performance will be rated on an adjectival rating system with a rating from Outstanding to Unsatisfactory and Neutral as follows. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of past performance can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any element will result in a lower past performance rating. Therefore, offerors are reminded to include all relevant past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in the Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) (See Section L.7). Past performance information will also include an assessment in the offeror’s ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ or teaming partners’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past work record (within the past five (5) years). The currency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. The Government may consider an offeror's contracts in aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror's present and past performance lend itself to this approach.

Rating

Definition

Outstanding

No risk anticipated of receiving quality product, delivered on time, or any degraded performance, or lack of customer satisfaction based upon offeror’s past performance. Present/past performance programs involved the magnitude of effort and complexities which are essentially what this solicitation requires.

Good

Very little risk anticipated of receiving quality product, delivered on time, or of degraded performance, or lack of customer satisfaction based upon offeror’s past performance. Present/past performance programs involved less magnitude of effort and complexities, including most of what this solicitation requires.

Satisfactory

Some potential risk anticipated of receiving quality product, delivered on time, or of degraded performance, or lack of customer satisfaction based upon offeror’s past performance. Present/past performance programs involved much less magnitude of effort and complexities, including some of what this solicitation requires.

Marginal

Significant potential risk anticipated of receiving quality product, delivered on time, or of degraded performance, or lack of customer satisfaction based upon offeror’s past performance. Did not involve any significant aspects of relevancy.

Unsatisfactory

Substantial potential risk anticipated of receiving quality product, delivered on time, or of degraded performance, or lack of customer satisfaction based upon offeror’s past performance. Did not involve any significant aspects of relevancy.

Neutral

No relevant past performance available for evaluation. Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches including, but not limited to:

(1) Information utilized may be obtained from the 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 present and past performance will include consideration of overall customer satisfaction and conclusions of informed judgment.

(2) Offerors may be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information, if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. 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 the 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.

(3) Past performance information will also be considered regarding any critical subcontractors and key personnel. If an offeror, or the proposed key employees of the offeror, do not have a past performance history deemed relevant to this solicitation, the offeror will receive a neutral rating. The neutral rating will be considered in the overall assessment for a best value decision.

M.7

EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

(a) TECHNICAL FACTOR: The following major evaluation sub-factors will be considered in evaluating the merits of the Technical Factor. See Section L.7 for technical proposal submission requirements.

1.

Management Plan & Method of Operation: The offeror shall furnish a management plan as discussed in Section L.7(b)(1)c.

(a) The plan shall address the management and control of tasks, staffing and scheduling controls to be implemented, internal controls for milestone achievement, and quality control of work products. The plan shall describe how the offeror will adhere to contract schedules, responsiveness to technical direction, and timely reporting requirements. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the solicitation will be assigned for performance within the contractor’s corporate entity and among proposed subcontractors. The proposed plan should be innovative.

(b) Describe the methodology and approach for managing and performing the requirements specified in the Performance Work Statement. The plan should state in a clear and precise manner the procedures, frequencies, and methods proposed to control and manage the entire project to accomplish all of the functional areas of the performance work requirements. Offerors shall clearly demonstrate their understanding of the performance work statements by illustrating their proposed allocation of resources. A MERE REITERATION OF THE SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Discussion of resources should include both numbers and types of available personnel, proposed subcontractors, vehicles, facilities, equipment, and supplies (both Contractor and Government Furnished); how facilities, equipment and supplies will be maintained; and how they will be replaced.

(c) Proposed methods of daily assignment of work and periodic work scheduling and assignment, including plans to meet peak, shifting, or emergency workloads.

(d) A chart showing the organization the offeror proposes to establish at the contract site. Include major subcontractors in this organization chart.

(e) A clear explanation of all lines of authority for the proposed organization, including authority delegated to the on-site Lead Worker/Project Manager, his/her relationship to the home office, and assignment of responsibility for the contract effort.

(f) Work unit production standards for each work task which are proposed for use in determining manning requirements.

(g) The offeror’s personnel management plan, including such items as qualification standards for employment; labor relations policies; standard work day; company rules, regulations, and disciplinary policies; procedures that will ensure that personnel are available for work required after duty hours; training programs; etc.

(h) Management and control of Government furnished facilities.

(i) A separate phase-in plan to describe exactly how the offeror proposes to execute all pre-contract procedures so that full service can be provided on the first day of contract work. The plan should describe employees, orientation and training plans, arrangements for receipt of equipment, etc.

(j) Proposed training plan and procedures for both supervisory and productive labor personnel.

(k) Management controls over the work force such as time and attendance procedures; employee identification control, center pass control, and employee movement control.

(l) Proposed control procedures for determining employee efficiency, based on production standards developed by the Contractor under paragraph (f) above.

(m) Proposed procedures to maintain coordination with Government representatives to assure maximum effectiveness and minimum interference with Agency operations.

2.

Quality Control (QC) Plan:

The offeror shall furnish a description (or sample) of the proposed Quality Control Plan (See Section E.3). The final Management Plan, submitted at the time of award, shall include the Quality Control Plan and Drug Free Work Force Plan.

(a) Proposed quality control and inspection responsibilities and procedures to assure adequate control of work results. The plan shall address the number and frequency of unscheduled inspections and the number of personnel dedicated full time to ensuring compliance with the Performance Work Statement.

(b) Key areas to be monitored, staffing, procedures for identifying and immediately correcting unsatisfactory performance before it is identified by the Government.

(c) Relationship of management to Quality Control and Quality Control Representative. Discuss specific duties and responsibilities of the QC representative.

(d) If subcontractor(s) will be used, describe the interface and coordination between the prime and subcontractor and the Government.

3.

Personnel Resources and Staffing: The offeror’s personnel will be evaluated on education, skills, training, years of experience, relevance of experience and work performed on similar projects. This sub-factor will also evaluate the appropriateness of the project team organizational structure based on the requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement. The offer should indicate a clear line of authority and responsibility for the project team and precisely where the project team reports in the corporate organization. This sub-factor will also consider the percentage of work which will be performed by a subcontractor versus the prime contractor. The offeror shall present his staffing plan to include the availability of personnel resources with work experience directly related to the task descriptions in the Performance Work Statement.

(a) Identify personnel which will be dedicated to the accomplishment of the required services. Identify personnel by job classification, i.e., laborer foremen, etc., man-hours per item in the bid schedule, prime contractor and subcontractor employees, and the identification, qualifications and training of supervisory personnel. Identify all available corporate personnel resources dedicated to this contract.

(b) The offeror shall present resumes for all Key Personnel (See Section H.5), in the format shown in Section J. The availability status of each individual identified must be stated as “available to begin work immediately” or “current hire” or “committed to future hire for this contract.

(c) Discuss participation in the E-Verify Program.

(d) The offeror shall discuss in detail any Employee Incentive Program.

4.

Corporate Experience: The Offeror’s proposal shall include a listing of other contracts of similar size and scope that relate directly to the solicitation and that have been performed by the corporate firm.

(a) Describe, in detail, past corporate experience that can be applied directly to the technical areas listed in the performance statement of work (see Note below).

(b) Identify all corporate management personnel who will be committed to assist in the phase-in period.

NOTE:

Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate corporate experience. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offeror, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The burden of providing thorough and complete corporate experience information remains with the offeror. Offers that do not contain the information requested by this paragraph risk rejection by the Government.

5. Environmental Management & Safety Plan: The offeror shall provide an Environmental Management & Safety Plan as described in Section L.7.

(a) The plan should be innovative and describe how the contractor intends to comply with all requirements governing the Environmental and Safety Program at the FLETC Facility.

(b) Discuss your compliance with all EPA hazardous waste regulations and South Carolina Environmental Protection Division regulations for all non-hazardous and hazardous waste management, disposition and disposal.

(c) Discuss specific duties and responsibilities of your Environmental representative; identifying that person by position and if these duties are collateral with other duties under the contract.

6.

Property Control Plan: The offerer shall describe their proposed property control plan.

(a) The description shall include equipment name, function, capacity, if applicable, whether it is owned (age if owned), leased, rented, or other, and the estimated quantity range of each type.

(b) Describe in detail how offeror intends to manage/administer all GFP and GFE in their possession and in accordance with the GFP clauses under this solicitation.

(c) Discuss specific security techniques and procedures for the accounting, utilization, protection, storage, and disposal of GFP and GFE.

(d) Address your Property Custodian’s duties and responsibilities.

7.

Risk: Identify any risks associated with the offeror’s approach and any actions that will be taken to mitigate that risk.

(b) PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR. The following major evaluation sub-factors will be considered in evaluating the merits of the Past Performance Factor. See Section L.7 for past performance submission requirements.

1. Quality of Service. This sub-factor considers how well the offeror has complied with contract requirements in contracts that are similar in size, content, and complexity of the solicitation requirements. It further considers whether required reports, for previous contracts, have been submitted accurately; has the offeror demonstrated a reputation for technical excellence, and does the contractor have a good safety record.

2. Timeliness of Performance. This sub-factor considers how well the offeror has adhered to contract schedules; how prompt was the offeror in submitting reports; was the offeror reliable, responsive to technical direction; did the offeror complete the work on time; was the offeror timely in wrap-up and contract administration; and were there any liquidated damages and/or reductions for performance failure assessed.

3. Cost Control. This sub-factor considers how well the offeror has demonstrated that they can stay within budget; has consistently maintained accurate and complete billings; has maintained a relationship between negotiated costs to actual costs; and has demonstrated a practice of cost efficiencies in the purchase of supplies.

4. Business Practices and Customer Satisfaction. This sub-factor considers how well the offeror has demonstrated effective management; how effective the offeror has been with subcontractors; has the offeror demonstrated reasonable/cooperative behavior and flexibility; does the offeror have a record of consistent innovative ideas; does the offeror have a record of ethics and business-like concern for the Government’s interest and customer satisfaction.

5.

Key Personnel. This sub-factor considers how well the offeror has demonstrated a stable and consistent history for maintaining well-qualified experienced personnel. What is the track record of the principal individuals selected to manage and perform key aspects of the work on the contract? What is the depth of knowledge and ability of the key personnel? Does the contractor have a history on changing the key personnel proposed in the offer? Does the contractor demonstrate a higher than average turnover rate of non-key personnel? Does the contractor have a proven record for providing on-going training for contract personnel?

(c) PRICE PROPOSAL.

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, total evaluated price/cost, and balance. Price evaluation will be conducted based on the aggregate total contract amounts from Schedule B for the Phase-In, Base Period, and all Option Periods. The Fixed-Priced CLINs will be evaluated in concurrence with Section M.5, Unbalanced Price Proprosals. Offerors who submit unrealistically low proposals or final proposal revisions risk elimination from the selection process. The lowest reasonable offer will receive the highest rating for this factor. See Section L.7 for price proposal submission requirements.

1.

Reasonableness will be evaluated by assessing the acceptability of the Offeror's methodology in developing their price/cost. For the price/cost proposals to be reasonable, it must represent a price/cost that provides the best value to the government when consideration is given to prices. The existence of adequate price competition may support a determination of reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, other techniques described in FAR 15.402 will be used.

2.

Total evaluated price/cost. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for the basic requirements (base period) and all options and other price-related issues. However, evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.

Financial Data. Any financial data submitted, as well as other agency reports, such as Dun and Bradstreet reports, will also be used in the price/cost evaluation process.

4.

Balanced Pricing: 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 or balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.8

MOST FAVORABLE PROPOSAL

If discussions are necessary, the Government intends to have written or oral discussions with all responsible offerors who submit proposals within the competitive range. However, offerors are advised to submit their most favorable proposal initially because the Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

M.9

DETERMINATION OF COMPETITIVE RANGE

(a) Offerors are advised that the Government, upon completion of the technical, past performance, and price evaluation processes outlined above, reserves the right to establish a competitive range and award without engaging in further discussions or negotiations concerning the terms and conditions of such offers. The competitive range shall be comprised of all offerors with a reasonable opportunity to receive the contract award. Offerors not falling within the competitive range shall be eliminated from further consideration; will be notified that their proposals are unacceptable; that negotiations with them are not contemplated and any revisions of their proposal will not be considered.

(b) Those proposals whose technical, past performance, and price evaluations fall within the competitive range shall proceed to the next step of the evaluation process. Offerors determined to fall within the competitive range shall make oral presentations as described in Section L.8.

M.10

AWARD

Offers will be evaluated on an all or none basis inclusive of the option years, and inclusive of all optional items. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Technical/Past Performance Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Price may become the determining factor if, in the Government’s judgment, two offerors are found to be substantially equal in technical merit. Note that an acceptable proposal with the lowest price/cost may not be selected if award to a higher priced proposal affords the Government a greater overall benefit. A proposal must be rated at least “Satisfactory” in order to be eligible for award.

END OF SECTION M