M1_ Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

M-1.1 This competitive acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force 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 provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph M-2 below.

Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price.

The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation. The government reserves the right to cancel the solicitation if there competition is not present.

Email correspondence conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions per FAR Part 15. Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) 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. Offeror's may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period if necessary.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are mathematically and materially unbalanced. As part of price evaluation, the government will evaluate the offeror's total price from Attachment "J4_ Bid Schedule".

M-1.2 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.

M-1.3 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.

M-1.4 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.

M-2 FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M-2.1 Factors: The Contracting Officer will conduct an integrated assessment on all proposals received that comply with the instructions of the solicitation. Current and relevant information should be provided to assist the Government with the evaluation process. The Government's evaluation shall be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Price

M-2.2 Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past performance is significantly more important than cost or price considerations.

M-3 EVALUATION PROCESS: 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 Section L, Paragraph L-2. 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.

M-3.1 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.

M-3.1.1 Recency: To be determined recent, offerors may submit up to three (3) project references that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation (SF 1442 Block 3). Past performance information that does not meet this requirement will not be evaluated.

M-3.1.2 Relevance: To be determined relevant, an effort must have an award value of no less than $3M with a minimum scope, magnitude and complexity of the project. Complexity is defined as the ability to perform and manage several projects at the same time and successfully perform similar or higher magnitudes than described in the solicitation. 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 the list " Past Performance Relevance Ratings" below shall be used when assessing offeror's efforts.

Past Performance Relevance Ratings Adjectival Rating Description:

M-3.1.3 Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with listing below "Performance Confidence Assessments". 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.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description:

M-3.2 Price Evaluation: The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, 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. 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.