M-001.docx

Section M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

This source selection is being conducted on an unrestricted/full-and-open competition basis.

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will use the best value–tradeoff source selection process, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 (Tradeoff Process). Award will be made to the offeror:

a) which is deemed responsible;

b) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements; and

c) whose proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Government.

Award will be made to the Offeror that is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1; whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements; and whose proposal is determined to provide the best overall value to the Government. The proposal offering the best value is the one that is most advantageous to the Government, when price and other factors are considered. The Government may select for award the offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost.

The following evaluation criteria are listed in descending order of importance:

NCF 1 – Experience

NCF 2 – Technical Approach for Expo Belgrade

NCF 3 - Concept Plan for Riyadh

NCF 4 – Past Performance

Factor 5 – Price

Non-Cost Factor 1 is of greatest importance and is higher in importance when compared to Non-Cost Factor 2. Non-Cost Factor 2 is higher in importance when compared to Non-Cost Factor 3. Non-Cost Factor 3 is higher in importance when compared to Factor 4. When combined, all Non-Cost Factors are significantly more important when compared to Price. As proposals become more equal in technical merits, price will become more important.

An “Unacceptable” rating on any subfactor under evaluation of Non-Cost Factors 1 through 3 or a “No Confidence” rating on evaluation Non-Cost Factor 4 will render an offer ineligible for award.

The technical proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government is implicit in the technical evaluation process. The Contracting Officer shall determine what trade-off between non-cost factors and price promises the greatest value to the Government. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest offered price, as technical is rated higher or more important than price.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The Government reserves the right to reject an offer if the Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents specified in Section L, or the Offeror submits a cost/price proposal that cannot be adequately explained or substantiated.

Descriptive terms used to describe different elements of an offeror’s proposal are defined below. These definitions are drawn from FAR Part 15.

Significant Strength: A significant outstanding or exceptional aspect of Offeror’s proposal that exceeds the specified performance requirements in a way to benefit the Government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the Offeror’s process and greatly increases the likelihood of successful performance.

Strength: An aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk: The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration for risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal volumes shall address each Technical Non-Cost Factor as it applies to the requirements set forth in this solicitation.

The Technical Non-Cost Factors will be evaluated as follows:

NCF 1 – Experience The Government will evaluate the offeror’s project experiences to determine if they demonstrate capabilities similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the activities found in this solicitation’s scope.

NCF 2 – Technical Approach for Expo Belgrade The Government will evaluate if the offeror’s proposed technical approach andunderstanding, outlined in the Belgrade task order PWS (see Attachment 1).

NCF 3 – Concept Plan for Riyadh The Government will evaluate if the offeror’s proposed concept plan and understanding meets the requirements outlined in the Riyadh PWS (see Attachment 1).

NCF 4 – Past Performance

Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform solicitation requirements based on previous and current contract efforts.

For the purpose of evaluating past performance, the Government will consider the collective past performance of the proposed contract team. For evaluation purposes, the proposed contract team includes the Prime Offeror, joint venture partner, and major subcontractor(s). For the purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that will likely perform more than 25% of this contract.

(i) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

(a) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, past performance must not be older than five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the supplies delivered and services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. In determining relevancy for past performance references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, to be performed under this contract by the offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose performance is being reviewed and evaluated.

With respect to relevancy, the Government will consider more relevant Past Performance to be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance evaluation than Past Performance of lesser relevance.

For the purpose of the relevancy assessment, the Government will consider:

Number and type of events provided. References for which more than five (5) systems like the ones required by this solicitation were delivered will be most favorably considered.

The place(s) of performance. References for which systems and services were delivered to OCONUS locations will be more favorably considered in the following order of preference: Belgrade, Riyadh, and OCONUS.

(c) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the quality of the work performed will be assessed. For each reference being evaluated, the Government will consider the areas identified in Appendix B (PPQ). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system.

For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

(ii) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contract references evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

The Government will consider recent and relevant past performance of the offeror to be more significant than similar past performance of major subcontractors.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and other Government representatives involved in a procurement as necessary; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Volume II: Factor 5 – Price Proposal

The Government will evaluate price to ensure that the awarded price is fair and reasonable. The principle manner for evaluating price will be price competition. However, the Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR 15.404 to conduct the evaluation. Price will not be scored.

Total evaluated price will be calculated by including the proposed prices for the Belgrade task order. Any plug-in amounts for Other Direct Costs (ODCs) will be provided by the government and will be included in the total evaluated price.

Evaluation of Options will be conducted in accordance with FAR part 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, for FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The objective of the evaluation of the 6-month option is to determine that the price is fair and reasonable. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise any options.

Labor Hour Requirements: The solicitation requires fixed unit prices for each respective labor hour. Price evaluation will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable.

The Government will evaluate the discounts offered and determine if the labor rates are fair and reasonable.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them necessary.