KAFB ISWM RFQ - Attch 5 Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Evaluation.

1.1. Basis for Contract Award. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of quotes meeting the acceptability standards for the technical factor stated in the Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1. All quotes shall be evaluated for responsiveness to the solicitation. The Government will organize the quotes from lowest to highest price and will evaluate the technical acceptability of the two lowest-priced Vendors first. If these Vendors’ submissions are technically acceptable, the lowest priced quote will be considered representative of the best value to the Government and the evaluation process will cease at that point. If one or both is found to be technically unacceptable, the next lowest-priced quote(s) from the original ranking will be put forward for evaluation of technical acceptability. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a quote being determined technically unacceptable. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the Vendor who: is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, is rated “Acceptable” in Factor 1 Technical; has the lowest evaluated price; and whose quote conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the quotes and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Rejection of Offers. The Government may reject any evaluated quote that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

1.4. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions). Vendor is required to meet all solicitation requirements such as: terms and conditions; representations and certifications; PWS requirements; and those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Vendor being ineligible for award. Vendor shall take no exception to the solicitation requirements.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors Used To Evaluate. Award will be made to the Vendor quoting the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Price

2.1.1. Evaluation Methodology. The Government will evaluate all factors in accordance with paragraph 1.1 Basis for Contract Award. Only those determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for award. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced quote meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1, who has been determined responsible and whose quote conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. The technical ratings are defined as follows:

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the vendor’s information provided, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the vendor will successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable Based on the vendor’s information provided, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the vendor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The Technical Factor is met when the Vendor presents a sound approach to meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements to provide ISWM services required in the PWS to include site-specific (Appendices A-B); Management, Technical Capability and Approach, and Phase-In and Transition Plan requirements (if applicable).

Factor 1a. Management – Vendor describes their approach to managing the ISWM requirement. Vendor provides information regarding their customer service, support and include principal points of contact.

Factor 1b. Technical Capability and Approach – Vendor clearly illustrates its capability to meet all PWS requirements. Information regarding the Vendor’s capability and approach to addressing site-specific requirements described in Appendices A-B are outlined and described in detail.

Factor 1c. Phase In and Transition Plan – Vendor presents a phase-in and transition plan that at a minimum, describes how the Vendor will provide for seamless transition between incumbent and successor Contractors to include, but not be limited to, a phase-in for personnel staffing, training, and observation of the incumbent’s waste collections, recyclable collections, and any other activities related to contract execution. This subfactor does not apply to the incumbent contractor.

Factor 1d. Mission Essential Contractor Plan. Vendor submits a written plan that addressed the minimum requirements identified in DFARS 252.237-7024. Failure to submit the plan or failure to meet the minimum requirements may cause the proposal to be not eligible for award.

2.3. Factor 2 – Price

2.3.1. Price Reasonableness and Balanced Pricing. The Government will rank from lowest to highest all offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP), including all option prices.

Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Price reasonableness is determined IAW FAR 13.106-3. Unreasonable proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Vendor does not understand the requirement. Additionally, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the

Government and may render an Vendor’s quote ineligible for award. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their price reasonableness and balanced prices. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Vendor.

2.3.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Pricing quotes will be reviewed for compliance with FAR 52.212-1 Addendum instructions. Table1 below will demonstrate the TEP calculation methodology.

Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required IAW with the following format:

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE PRICE

TOTAL PRICE FOR BASE PERIOD

TOTAL PRICE FOR OPTION YEAR (OY) 1

TOTAL PRICE FOR OY 2

TOTAL PRICE FOR OY 3

TOTAL PRICE FOR OY 4

TOTAL PRICE FOR 6 MONTH EXTENSION

TEP = (BASE + 4 OYS + 6 MONTH EXT)

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Vendor’s proposed prices for 12-month Base Period (to include cut-over), four one-year Option Periods, and an optional six month Extension Period IAW FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract.” The six month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed OY 4 unit prices.

The six month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six month Extension Period is not to be considered part of OY 4 and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.