EVALUATION CRITERIA - best value_rev1.pdf

CUI//PROCURE

52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. Factor #1 – Technical Approach

• Applicable Licenses

• Approved Disposal Facility

2. Factor #2 – Past Performance

3. Factor #3 – Price

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

M.1. BASIS FOR AWARD.

M.1.1. The Government intends to make a Single Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Award on a competitive basis using the BEST VALUE Tradeoff among cost/price and non-cost/price factors.

A Best Value Tradeoff process will be used; thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest cost/priced offeror, or other than the offeror with the highest rated non-cost/price proposal. Best Value means that the Government will evaluate information based on the following evaluation criteria: Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. It is the Offeror’s burden to ensure that their proposal is submitted on or before the due date and time. If the Proposal is received after the due date and time, it may not be considered. Failure to submit all documents concurrently and in accordance with these instructions may render a proposal Unacceptable. Written proposals shall remain valid for a period of Sixty (60) Calendar Days after the closing date of the Solicitation.

M.1.2. The Government intends to evaluate Proposals and award a contract without discussions with the Best Value Offeror (except clarifications as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial Proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request Proposal revisions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The Government intends to award one contract. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request Proposal revisions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. The Government intends to award one contract.

M.1.3. The Government intends to evaluate and award without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions. If discussions are required, they will be conducted with Offerors IAW FAR 13.106-2.

M.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA. The Offeror’s proposal for this requirement will be evaluated using the following criteria. An evaluation for Technical Approach will be made to ensure satisfactory responsiveness to the requirements set forth in this solicitation. The Government intends to make a Single Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Award on a Full and Open Competition basis using the Best Value Tradeoff process. “Best Value” means that the offer meets all of the stated minimum requirements. Incomplete or unreasonable offers shall not be considered. The Government will evaluate information based on the following evaluation criteria: Technical Approach (Applicable Licenses and Approved Disposal Facility), Past Performance, and Price.

All quotations received on or before the quotation due date will be evaluated by a Source Selection Team (SST). Award will be made to the responsible Offeror who meets all of the stated minimum requirements.

M.2.1. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH. This factor will be evaluated using the adjectival ratings of “Outstanding; Good; Acceptable; Marginal; or Unacceptable”. The Offeror shall submit a written proposal which effectively demonstrates the Offeror’s Technical Approach.

M.2.1.1. The Offeror’s technical approach should specifically address a clear understanding of all tasks and how the approach is likely to yield the required results within the required timeframe, the methodology and flexibility that will be used in accomplishing this contract, the Offeror’s ability to perform, and, how the technical approach is creative and reduces cost, technical, or schedule risk to the Government.

M.2.1.2. There will also be Two (2) “Pass/Fail” Requirements within the Technical Approach:

Applicable Licenses, and Approved Disposal Facility.

M.2.1.3. THE OFFEROR'S PROPOSAL MUST PASS BOTH REQUIREMENTS TO

ADVANCE IN THE PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS.

M.2.1.4. In order to earn a “Pass” on their Proposal for Applicable Licenses, the Offeror shall have all applicable, current, and valid licenses granted or issued by the appropriate regulatory authorities for the CLIN(s) proposed to receive and permanently dispose of waste prior to contract award. “License” shall include licenses, permits, and any other type of authorization or approval. The licenses shall be current, dated, signed, and approved. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to demonstrate it has the applicable licenses or will have them prior to contract award.

RATING DESCRIPTION

PASS Proposal DOES contain Applicable Licenses and Approved Disposal Facility FAIL Proposal DOES NOT contain Applicable Licenses and Approved Disposal Facility

M.2.1.5. The Offeror may, in lieu of a required license, or in addition to a license set to expire before contract award, provide documentation supporting its reasonable expectation that such license will be granted, issued, or renewed by the date of contract award. A proposal containing this documentation will be evaluated the same as if it included a valid/non-expiring version of the license. However, if it is determined that the documentation is insufficient to support a reasonable belief that the license will be granted/issued/renewed by the date of contract award, then the proposal will be evaluated as if it does not contain the valid license. In any event, the Government will not award a contract to an Offeror that fails to provide proof of actual grant/issuance/renewal prior to contract award.

M.2.1.6. In order to earn a “Pass” on their Proposal for Approved Disposal Facility, the Potential Contractor, or Subcontractor, shall have a disposal facility that is fully capable and ready to receive and permanently dispose of the Regulated Medical Waste for the CLIN(s) proposed by the date of contract award.

M.2.1.7. Categories of Waste. Both the Offeror (Proposed Prime) and the Subcontractor (if applicable) are required to be approved and permitted to collect, handle, and dispose of all Six

(6) Categories of Regulated Medical Waste.

M.2.1.8. The Six (6) Categories of Regulated Medical Waste are:

M.2.1.9. Category I (Pathological Waste) – Tissues, organs, body parts, and body fluids removed during surgery and autopsy.

M.2.1.9.1. Category II (Human Blood and Blood Products) – Waste blood, serum, plasma and blood products.

M.2.1.9.2. Category III (Cultures and Stocks of Infectious Agents – Microbiological Waste) – Specimens from medical and pathology laboratories. Includes culture dishes and devices used to transfer, inoculate, and mix. Also includes discarded live and attenuated vaccines.

M.2.1.9.3. Category IV (Contaminated Sharps) – Contaminated hypodermic needles, syringes, scalpel blades, Pasteur pipettes, and broken glass.

M.2.1.9.4. Category V (Isolation Wastes) – Generated by hospitalized patients isolated to protect others from communicable disease.

M.2.1.9.5. Category VI (Contaminated Animal Carcasses, Body Parts and Bedding) – From animals intentionally exposed to pathogens in research, biologicals production, or in vivo pharmaceuticals testing.

M.2.1.10. RATING STANDARDS FOR THE NON-PRICE PROPOSAL (EXCLUDING PAST

PERFORMANCE)

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M.2.2. FACTOR #2 – PAST PERFORMANCE. The Government will first evaluate each Past Performance Information Sheet to determine whether the services listed are “Recent” or “Not Recent”. Contracts/Task Orders cited must be current or have ended not more than three (3) years prior to the closing date of this solicitation. If the contract performance ended more than three (3) years prior to the closing date of this solicitation it will be determined not be recent and will not be evaluated further. A determination of “Not Recent” may be made based solely on the information provided on the PPIS. The Government may obtain additional information from the POC named on the PPIS to assist in making a recency determination.

M.2.2.1. Recency shall be evaluated as follows:

Rating Definition Recent Contracts cited are current, i.e., have ended not more than three years prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

Not Recent Contracts cited are not current, i.e., have ended more than three years prior to the closing date of the solicitation.

M.2.2.2. The Government will then evaluate each recent Past Performance Information Sheet to determine whether the services listed are “Relevant” or “Not Relevant”. A determination of “Not Relevant” may be made based solely on the information provided on the Past Performance Information Sheets. Offerors shall ensure that information provided on the Past Performance Information Sheets is complete and detailed enough to allow the Government to make a relevancy determination. The Government may obtain additional information from the POC named on the Past Performance Information Sheet to assist in making a relevancy determination.

Past Performance found to be “Not Relevant” will not be evaluated further.

M.2.2.3. Relevancy shall be evaluated as follows:

Rating Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.2.2.4. Finally, the Government will review recent and relevant Past Performance to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. The performance confidence assessment determines how well the offeror performed on the relevant contracts/task orders. This includes the degree to which the offeror has satisfied past and present customers in terms of meeting work schedules, provided specified services, meeting contract terms without failure (or resolving issues immediately), cooperation, and timeliness. Offerors will receive one overall rating for Past Performance and this rating is the performance confidence assessment. Greater consideration will be given to services closely related to those required under this solicitation. Both the quality and quantity of services provided will be considered when establishing a confidence assessment rating for each offeror. Failure to provide the correct, current phone number and e-mail address for each POC listed on the Past Performance Information Sheets, that will allow the Government to contact each POC, may result in a lower rating for this factor.

M.2.2.5. The Government may contact POCs listed on the Past Performance Information Sheets to obtain information regarding past performance. The Government is not restricted from evaluating and considering other relevant past performance information in its possession to include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings, Department of Defense (DoD) Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), sources outside the Government and interviews with Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) regardless of whether such information has been provided by the offeror.

M.2.2.6. The past performance confidence assessment shall be evaluated as follows:

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.2.2.7. A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

M.2.3. FACTOR #3 – PRICE. The price Proposal will be evaluated separately from the non-cost Proposal and past performance and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The total evaluated price will be evaluated for reasonableness in terms of:

M.2.3.1. Prices of Bags/Bins/Pounds, and Other Direct Costs estimated in the Quotation are based on reasonable assumptions.

M.2.3.2. Uniformity between the proposed prices and open market prices for the removal (per pound) of Regulated Medical Waste.

M.2.3.3. Consistency with the Technical Approach, in that, the prices are consistent with and reflect the proposed requirement for all years.

M.2.3.4. The Contract shall contain the Clause FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, or an equivalent Clause. By submitting a quotation for the Contract, the Contractor agrees to this inclusion in the Contract.

M.2.3.4.1. The Price Quotation will be evaluated against an Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and other sources. The Government will evaluate offers by establishing a Total Evaluated Cost/Price which will consist of the total cost/price proposed for all Contract Line Items, and the amount associated with FAR 52.217-8. The amount evaluated under FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated using the prices proposed for the final twelve (12) Months of the Ordering Period, prorated six months. The Business Quotation should be specific and complete in every detail.

M.2.3.5. All price Proposals shall provide sufficient detail to determine the proposed pricing as fair and reasonable. At a minimum, this shall include proposed cost per pound, cost per bag or cost per bin. Other costs identified shall be explained in sufficient detail to understand the necessity for the current scope of work.

M.2.3.5.1. Offerors shall utilize a Microsoft Excel workbook for submission of pricing information and shall submit a separate workbook for each year (i.e. Base Year, Option Year 1...etc.) price information shall be submitted in “Read Only” format that shows all the calculations, formulas, and links for review. Totals from detailed spreadsheets should track to the summary spreadsheet.

M.2.3.5.2. All Proposals with separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

M.2.3.5.3. Offerors shall provide the purpose, origin, destination, and duration along with the pricing of any travel required under this effort for all contract years. Offerors are encouraged to read FAR 31.205-46, Travel Costs, regarding permissibility of travel prices.

M.2.3.5.4. The Government will evaluate offers by establishing a Total Evaluated Cost/Price which will consist of the total cost/price proposed for all base contract line items, option contract line items, and the amount associated with FAR 52.217-8. The amount evaluated under FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated using the rates proposed for the last option period, prorated six months.

M.2.4. OTHER INFORMATION. Provide the Name, Title, and Telephone Number of the Company/Division Point of Contract regarding decisions made with respect to your Proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, please identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

M.2.4.1. The Business Proposal shall be specific and complete in every detail. The method of payment under the resulting contract is through Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) located at:

https://wawf.eb.mil/

M.2.4.2. Solicitation, Offer, and Award. The Offeror shall complete Blocks #12 – #18 of the SF 1449 (fill-in and signatures) Section A of the Solicitation and submit with the Proposal. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1449 and shall acknowledge receipt of all amendments issued. An Acrobat PDF File shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

M.2.4.3. Offeror Representations and Certifications. The Offeror shall complete the annual representations and certifications electronically through the System for Award Management (SAM) database located at: https://sam.gov/.

https://sam.gov/