J-6 Section M_032525.pdf

Solicitation FA448425R0015

SECTIONM– EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

a. This competitive acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1 to make a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to offeror(s) who gives the Government the greatest confidence they will best meet or exceed our requirements at a fair, reasonable, and affordable price, and in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, evaluations of the factors described in this provision will be completed. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the best value tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Awards will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price.

b. Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPR): The government intends to award without discussions with respective offerors. 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 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.

c. Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

d. Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award a contract only to a responsible vendor. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. At the discretion of the contracting officer, the government may require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract or quantities.

Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the contracting officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

e. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items, 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:

(1) The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review of the lowest priced offer to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in the Instructions to Offerors. This review will include an evaluation of whether or not the written plan describing how the contractor will perform essential contractor services listed in the Performance Work Statement during periods of crisis is compliant with the requirements of DFARS 252.237-7024. In an effort to structure and streamline the evaluation process, conforming proposals shall then be ranked by proposed price for the project from lowest to highest and then evaluated for past performance. If the lowest evaluated priced offer is judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, the offeror represents the best value for the Government and will receive the award. If the lowest evaluated offeror is not judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, evaluations will continue(in ascending order by price) until an offeror is rated with "Substantial Confidence" or, until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision for an award.

(2) Past Performance Evaluation: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance based on the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance, all which shall be considered. Any effort submitted must be similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to this effort. These are combined to establish one (1) performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are two (2) aspects to the quality of the past performance evaluation: recency and relevancy. Past performance references and data of either party to a joint venture or teaming arrangement will be considered to apply equally to the joint venture or teaming arrangement.

(3) Recency: Recent past performance would include efforts awarded, completed, or ongoing within the past five years. Past performance information that does not meet this requirement will not be evaluated.

(4) Relevance: Relevant performance is defined as services that are similar to or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in the Performance Work Statement. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the requirement described in the solicitation based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevance ratings in Table 1 below shall be used when assessing offeror’s efforts.

Table 1- Past Performance Relevance Ratings Adjectival Rating 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.

(5) Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 2 below. If teaming partners/joint ventures both have prime contractor experience, then their past performance rating will be equal to a prime contractor. If the teaming partners/joint ventures have no prime contractor past performance, the past performance will be evaluated less favorably. If a prime contractor submits past performance of a proposed subcontractor, the past performance information will be evaluated less favorably than if submitted for the prime. In the case of offerors for which there is no or limited information on past contract, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and a performance confidence rating of “Neutral” will be assigned. Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory confidence will be rated more favorably than a “Neutral” confidence rating. As a result of the recency and relevancy assessments, and overall quality of the contracts evaluated, one of the confidence ratings as described below will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if the lowest priced offeror does not receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment.

(6) Price Evaluation: The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offer, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures found in FAR Part 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price. After a compliance review of the lowest priced offeror is accomplished, offeror whose total evaluated price is determined unreasonable (in accordance with FAR

15.404 and FAR 31.201-3) or unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1) may not be considered for award. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Table 2- Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

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.

Unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror's proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.