Amendment 03 Final.docx

M6785421R7900

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M.1 Basis for Contract Award.

The Government anticipates the award of a single Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract as a result of this solicitation on the basis of best value with tradeoffs in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff process.

Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), Instruction to offerors-Competitive Acquisition, The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.2 Evaluation Procedures.

The Government will establish separate evaluation panels for the Technical Volume and Price Volume. The Technical Volume will be evaluated separately from the Price Volume, with each panel completing an evaluation report detailing their findings for each Offeror. However, the panels may provide relevant information from the volume that they are reviewing to each other to assist in the evaluation process, when appropriate. The evaluations will be submitted to the Source Selection Authority for an independent determination of the Offeror who presents the best value to the Government.

The Government will reject any proposal without further evaluation that do not have a completed Staffing Plan, Section J, Attachments 5 and 6, that includes all proposed staffing to meet the PWS requirements.

The Government may cease to further evaluate any proposal if the evaluated Combined Technical/Risk Rating makes make the proposal otherwise unawardable.

M.3 Evaluation Factors.

The evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach (non-price) Factor 2- Past Performance Factor 3 – Price and Compensation Plan for Professional Employees

Technical Approach is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price and the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

Factor 1: Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach to determine:

(a) the degree to which the Offeror understands the technical requirements in the PWS.

(b) the extent to which the Offeror proposes labor categories with minimum qualifications to be able to successfully perform the PWS requirements,

(c) the likelihood of the quality assurance approach to ensuring high quality deliverables that meet the Government’s needs, and,

(d) the explanation and illustration, if appropriate, demonstrating how the Offeror will work across labor categories to promote integration of all facets of the PWS.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate recent past performance information, including information from the Offeror's proposal and PPQs submitted by their references. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to obtain information from the established systems such as, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), other data bases; and from other sources available to the Government, such as, Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials. The Government will determine the relevance of each recent example and quality of performance on each past performance effort with at least some relevance.

To determine whether a past performance effort is recent, the Government will verify that the effort was performed within the three-year period prior to the submission of the proposal. To determine the relevance of a past performance effort, the Government will consider how similar the past performance effort is to the effort being solicited in terms of size, scope and complexity. The Government will consider past performance of proposed major subcontractors, or past performance by the Offer as a subcontractor, but it may consider either as less relevant than performance by the Offeror as a prime contractor.

The quality of performance on all recent and relevant efforts considered will be weighed with respect to the relevance of each to determine a single, overall confidence rating for each offeror.

Factor 3 – Price and Compensation Plan for Professional Employees.

Price will be evaluated, but not assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will establish a “Total Evaluated Price to the Government” for each Offeror, by multiplying the Offeror’s proposed unit price for each CLIN by the quantities specified in Section B to verify the extended price. The sum of the extended prices and the NTE amounts for Travel and Other Direct Costs will determine the “Total Evaluated Price to the Government.”

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s Compensation Plan for Professional Employees in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

M.4 Evaluation Rating.

M.4.1. Adjectival Ratings

For factor 1, the Government will assign a combined technical/risk rating in accordance with the table shown below. The following definitions are applicable:

* Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

* Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

* Significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

* Deficiency is defined as 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 is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

M.4.2. Rating Scheme for Past Performance.

For Past Performance, the Government will assign Offerors a relevancy rating, for each past performance effort and an overall confidence rating in accordance with the tables below. Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, size, scope, complexity, magnitude, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or the Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information. To determine the performance confidence assessment rating, evaluators will weigh the quality of the Offeror’s performance on the prior efforts in proportion to the relevance of each effort to arrive at an overall confidence rating. The greater the prior effort’s relevance, the more the quality of the performance on that effort will affect the overall rating. Those efforts deemed not relevant will not affect the overall confidence rating one way or the other, given that the performance on that effort is deemed not relevant.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating

Definition

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.

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.

In the event that insufficient past performance data exists for an Offeror, the overall rating for this factor will be “Neutral Confidence”. This rating will not affect the Offeror’s overall rating in either an adverse or beneficial manner. However for purposes of the best value tradeoff determination a “substantial confidence” or satisfactory confidence “ is worth more than a “neutral confidence” past performance rating.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf