KISS RFP DRAFT SECTION M 11.1.24.pdf

RFP FA561325RXXXX

Section M

Evaluation Factors For Award

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. The Government intends to award a Multiple Award IDIQ Contract to responsible Offerors whose proposals, conforming to the solicitation, is evaluated, based on the Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) with a Government -validated technical score who meet the minimum threshold. The Government is not selecting the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable proposal and will not conduct a subjective tradeoff.

The qualification categories maximize the objectivity of determining the HTRO. The Government finds that an individual Offeror with prior performance history in the qualification criteria listed in the HTRO self-scoring matrix (Appendix E) presents a lower risk of unsuccessful performance. Likewise, the Government finds that an individual Offeror with no or little prior performance history in the qualification criteria listed presents a higher risk of unsuccessful performance.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award to all offerors who meet or exceed the minimum threshold in each Domain. The Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in orders consisting of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Reimbursable (CR) line items.

1.3 Proposal Substantiation.

An Offeror’s submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Prior Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed Self-Rated Score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. This disingenuous or artificially inflated score could result in the Government determining the Offerors proposal to be disqualified and not awardable. The Government may unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

The Government will review all proposals to ensure compliance with Section L. When all requested documents are received and confirmed to be compliant, the offeror’s proposal will then be determined sufficient for evaluation.

M.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Methodology

The Government will utilize the highest rated technical offeror (HTRO) methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself on Volume 1: Prior Technical Experience, based on the criteria described within this document. The Government intends to evaluate the

Prior Technical Experience and Price of the Offeror with the highest Self-Rated Score.

The Government will follow the following steps:

2.2 Evaluation Process

Step 1: The Government will evaluate the licenses and/or certificates to validate Offeror’s current insurance and license to operate in Germany. Once validated, process to Step 3.

Step 2: The Government will rank all offers based on its Self-Rated Score from highest to lowest.

Step 3: Using the Matrix and the Offeror’s Work Samples, the Government will validate the highest Self-Rated Scored (SRS) offers and determine a Validated-Rated Score (VRS). If the VRS confirms the offer has met the minimum score, the Government will proceed to Step 5.

Step 4: Once an Offer is determined apparently awardable, the Government will review the OCI mitigation plan, as applicable, to determine its acceptability and then proceed with the award process. If the OCI Mitigation plan is not acceptable the Offeror is deemed un-awardable.

Award will be made to the Offeror(s) with a Government -validated technical score who meet the minimum threshold.

2.2.1 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the Offerors’ initial proposal shall contain the Offerors,’ best terms from a price and technical standpoint. If during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror Responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and Request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

IMPORTANT: The Government reserves the right to contact the Prime, any Subcontractors, and/or other Government resources to substantiate, understand, or clarify ANY of the evidence provided.

2.2.2 Evaluation Notices (ENs)

If required (based upon Discussions discussed above), the Offerors will provide proposal change pages along with its Evaluation Notice responses for any aspect of the proposal that will be incorporated into the awarded contract. After discussions are completed, Offerors will not be given any further opportunity to submit proposal revisions. The Government reserves the right to request Proposal Revisions from all, some or none of the Offerors.

2.2.3 Communications

The CO will control all exchanges of source selection information between the Government and Offerors. Exchanges with industry may be written and transmitted via encrypted e-mail or facsimile.

The Contracting Officer (CO) and Contract Specialist (CS) identified in para 1.1 are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO and CS.

Email may be used to transmit information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the subject line.

2.3 Evaluation Factors

The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section M.3.

Factor 1: Prior Technical Experience

M.3 EVALUATION

3.1 Compliance Check

The Contracting Officer will perform a compliance check for all submitted information required to be considered eligible for award. Non-compliant proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Only Offerors whose proposals are determined to be compliant will move into the evaluation process.

Table 1 is provided to identify the information required for proposal submission. Offerors should use this table as a guide prior to submitting to ensure the proposed information is complete and ready for evaluation. Any information missing from the list below may result in a non-compliant submission, which will not be evaluated.

3.1.1 Volume I Administrative

3.1.1.1 Narrative Summary

The Narrative Summary shall identify the authorized offeror personnel, company information, exceptions to solicitation requirements (if applicable), validity statement, offeror subsidiaries, and Contractor’s OCI Mitigation plan or affirmative statement that no actual or potential conflict exists. Compliance does NOT imply an acceptable or approved OCI Mitigation Plan.

3.1.1.2 Contract documentation

Completed and signed SF 33 and any amendments (SF30s).

3.1.1.3 Representations and Certifications

Completed Representations and Certifications and Identification and Assertions, if applicable

3.1.1.4 Corporate Relationships and Structures

Completed Corporate Relationships and Structures, if applicable

3.1.2 Volume II – Prior Technical Experience IAW Section L4

3.2 FACTOR I – PRIOR TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE

3.2.1 Prior Technical Experience Evaluation

Pass/Fail Compliance Review: The Government will begin the evaluation by confirming the Offeror (and its subcontractor(s)/ teaming partner(s)*, if applicable) have documented they possess a current License/Clearance to operate in Germany in accordance with Section L. If the license/clearance to work in Germany is not confirmed, the Offeror in question will be not be further evaluated and is determined unawardable.

The Government will then rank all proposals based on the Self-Rated Score as set forth in 2.1 above, from the highest Self-Rated Scored Offeror to the lowest Self-Rated Scored Offeror.

The Government will then validate the Self-Rated Scores of the applicable HTRO domain. To do this, the Government will use the work samples and related proposal information required by Section L4 of the ITO, Appendix C, Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) and Appendix E, Self- Scoring Matrix (named Matrix hereafter) provided by the Offeror. The Government will review the section of the work sample provided by the Offeror within the CRM and Matrix. If the Government is unable to find the substantiating information within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc., the Government will not search further for the substantiating information.

If the Government is unable to validate that Offeror’s Self-Rated Score based on the work samples and Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s Self-Rated Score, potentially down to zero (0) points. The Government will only adjust the Offeror’s Self- Rated Score downward, not upward. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government and are based upon the substantiation of the Self-Rated Score provided by the Offeror. If the Government downward adjusts the Offeror’s Self-Rated Score as a result of the validation process, and that Offeror no longer meets the minimum score, then the Government will determine the Offeror’s proposal un-awardable and the Government will validate the next Offeror’s Self-Rated Score who meets the minimum threshold, until the Government identifies all Offeror’s who meet or exceed the required self-score for each domain.

3.2.2 Maximum scoring. Max. Possible Points:

The maximum score for each Domain within the self-scoring matrix is outlined in Table 1 below and will have extended application by Offerors in completing the attachment at Appendix E, KISS HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix.

CATEGORY

MAX

POSSIBLE

POINTS

Minimum Threshold

POINTS

Technical Experience Custodial Services 30000 27000 Grounds Maintenance 30000 27000 Total Facility Maintenance 37000 33300 Military Family Housing 34000 30600

*See Appendix E, KISS HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix **All points shall be in whole numbers

M.4 AWARD

Award will be made to responsible Offerors with the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) scores that meet or exceed the minimum threshold. The Minimum threshold for each category is 90% of the Max Possible Points Allowed.

M.4 AWARD