J-14 Section M_ Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

52.212‑2 — Evaluation of Commercial Items

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

Past Performance

Price

Past Performance is significantly more important than 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). For FAR 52.217‑8, Option to Extend Services, the Government will evaluate the price of any possible extension by dividing the price of the last option period by twelve, multiplying by six, and adding that amount to the total evaluated price.

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, emailed 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.

(End of provision)

ADDENDA TO 52.212-2 -Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR CONTRACTAWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection where past performance is rated significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to the terms and conditions of this model contract. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price, including option prices. An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the bid schedule by the proposed unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. Proposal evaluation will then proceed according to this addendum. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), or unaffordable (not within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) may not be considered for award. Shall all pricing not be considered within scope or reasonable the solicitation may be canceled and resolicited.

B. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices by multiplying the quantities identified in the bid schedule by the proposed unit prices for all evaluated CLINs and SLINs, including all base and option CLINs.

Extended amounts will be verified for accuracy and used to determine the total evaluated price.

B1. Price Reasonableness, Balance, and Affordability. Prices will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404, FAR 15.404‑1, and FAR 31.201‑3 to determine whether they are: reasonable, balanced, affordable. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may be removed from further consideration.

Affordability will be assessed by comparing: total proposed price to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), significant cost drivers to the IGE, each fiscal year’s pricing to available budget, total proposed price to total budgeted funds

B2. Total Evaluated Price Calculation: The total evaluated price includes: all CLINs and SLINs, all option periods, the FAR 52.217‑8 six‑month extension. Please ensure the 6 month extension price is based on half of Option Year 4.

B3. Evaluation of the Fillable Pricing Sheet If best value cannot be reasonably determined through evaluation of the primary CLINs and their associated option CLINs, the Government may incorporate the offeror’s fillable pricing sheet into the price evaluation. The Government will review these additional unit prices to ensure they reflect fair and reasonable pricing consistent with FAR 15.404.

B4. Random Sampling for Price Reasonableness. To further ensure price reasonableness and protect the Government from excessive or disproportionate pricing, the Government may conduct a random sampling of 10% of the items from the fillable pricing sheet. Sampled items will be compared against: historical pricing (if available), market research, IGE benchmarks, pricing submitted by other offerors. Significant deviations, outliers, or materially overstated pricing may be considered a pricing or performance risk and may result in an unfavorable evaluation or removal from award consideration.

B5. Pricing‑Related Performance Risk Indicators. The Government may identify performance risk indicators within an offeror’s pricing structure, including: extremely low prices, inconsistent pricing patterns, disproportionately high prices. Such indicators may negatively impact the offeror’s evaluation.

C. Relevant present/past performance includes performance of efforts similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror's demonstrated past performance period. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1, Performance Confidence Assessments.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or if the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

TABLE 1 -PERFORMANCECONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

CONFIDENCE

RATING

DESCRIPTION OF CONFIDENCE RATING

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

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expect ation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Neutral

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse t hat 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

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation th at 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

NOTE: SUBSTANTIAL or SATISFACTORY confidence rating is worth more than a NEUTRAL.

D. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The government will use the following relevancy definitions as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, when assessing recent/relevant contracts.

TABLE 2 - PASTPERFORMANCERELEVANCY RATINGS

RELEVANCY RELEVANCY DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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

E. If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

F. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment, or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

G. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

H. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. In summary, once the proposal deadline ends, the evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review of the lowest priced offer to verify the proposal conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L of the RFP. If lowest priced offeror is determined Substantial Confidence, that offeror represents the best offeror for the Government and shall receive the award. If the lowest priced evaluated offeror is not judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, evaluations will continue (in ascending order by price) until the next offeror is rated with "Substantial Confidence" or, until all offerors are evaluated. In the event the lowest priced offeror receives a Substantial Confidence Past Performance rating, additional evaluations may continue until adequate price competition is established. The CO shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision for the awardee. The Government reserves the right to conduct additional evaluations as deemed necessary

I. Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions(FPR): If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.