EVALUATION_FACTORS_FOR_AWARD_18JUN14.docx

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions; however, award may be based upon the initial offer. 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 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. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors (and subfactors, if required), listed below. The factors are listed in descending order of importance. Technical is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price/Cost.

The Technical sub-factors, which are in descending order of importance, are Written proposal and Vendor product demo. The specific elements that will be evaluated are "maintainability", "supportability", "user interface", "IA compliance", "architecture", and "growth".

Price/Cost is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different offerors’ Technical and Cost/Price proposals.

All evaluation factors other than price/cost, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that proposed product meets or exceeds the Government’s requirements/specifications. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the price/cost proposal.

For all the Technical factor(s)/subfactors, if applicable, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, and deficiencies of the proposal. The degree of benefit to the Government associated with assigned strengths will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceeds solicitation requirements. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement and is assessed by the identification of weakness (es). Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “High” Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

For the Past Performance factor, the Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant prior efforts accomplished by the Offeror are to the solicitation requirements. A Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will then be assigned, which addresses the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort successfully based on the Offeror’s (including subcontractors’ and/or JV/SLE team members’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement. More relevant past performance 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. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance, without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown” which is considered a “Neutral” rating. Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work before. When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

PART B. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine whether the proposed product meets the requirements and specifications of the combined synopsis-solicitation.The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the following:

The Technical sub-factors, which are in descending order of importance, are;

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors’ and critical team members’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to this instant effort. Similarity of the service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming may all be considered in the relevancy determination. Secondly, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical, price/cost, and schedule requirements on products and services deemed relevant to the solicitation requirements. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated. In the case of an Offeror without any relevant past performance or for whom the information on past performance is not available or is unknown, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will be assigned a rating of “neutral”.

3.0 PRICE/COST

Offeror pricing will be evaluated to ensure the proposed price is fair and reasonable. Price analysis techniques will be utilized during evaluation of the Price proposal.

Overall Summary Level for all CLINs Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

PART C EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Technical Ratings

OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strength: 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: A flaw in the proposal that 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 increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

2.0 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Technical Risk Ratings: The risk rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance associated with the Offeror’s technical approach.

3.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings: More relevant past performance 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.

4.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.