BASIS_FOR_AWARD_-_Rev.1.docx

BASIS FOR AWARD:

The single award resulting from this solicitation for towing services will be a Fixed Price - Economic Price Adjustment – Fuel only (FP-EPA), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The tradeoff source selection method will be used.

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must fully comply with the instructions included in ADD’L INSTRUCTION TO OFFEROR, and sufficiently address all solicitation requirements. As such, offers that take exception to any term or condition of this Request for Quote (RFQ), propose any additional term or condition, or omit any required information, may not be considered for award. Alternate proposals are NOT authorized and will be rejected.

The Government intends to award this contract task order without discussions. Notwithstanding this intent, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors as necessary. Offerors that take exception to the Government’s technical requirements in the technical volume will not be considered for award; therefore, any exception to the Government’s technical requirements must be resolved prior to the solicitation closing date.

To be considered eligible for award, each Offeror must submit a single proposal that contains a complete and accurate response to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will accept only one offer. No multiple awards will be made.

Any inconsistencies, within the price proposal or between the technical or price proposal, should be fully explained, or it may be considered a discrepancy within the offer, and calls into question the Offeror’s ability to perform (which will result in diminished evaluation rating). The proposal shall be in the format prescribed in ADD’L INSTRUCTION TO OFFEROR, and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified. Offers will be evaluated on each of the following evaluation factors, listed below:

Factor I - Technical Capability Factor II - Past Performance Factor III - Price Factor I - Technical Capability Grading Criteria:

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, Factor I, represents MINIMUM acceptable criteria. Offerors’ technical information will be used to determine whether the services proposed meet the specifications included in this solicitation. Services offered, as provided in Offerors’ technical information, will be evaluated as Fully Meets Requirements, Meets Key Requirements, or Fails to Meet Requirements. Offers that received an overall rating of Fails to Meet Requirements in Factor I may be precluded from further consideration.

NOTE: The term “technical” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the probability of successful performance. The Technical Evaluation Board will rate the offeror’s proposal, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table M-1.

Factor II - Past Performance Grading Criteria:

Past performance will be rated Highest Performance, Acceptable Performance, or Unacceptable basis using the ratings in Table M-2 below:

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection. Therefore, the solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

“Recency” and “relevancy” for this procurement means similar contracts (“similar” defined as approximately equal or more in task requirement – i.e. Hazardous Material Marine Towing Services) completed or being performed within the last seven years of the date of this solicitation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of grading, “unknown” shall be considered Highest Performance. An evaluation of Highest Performance based on unknown past performance may render the offer non-competitive when compared with other offers. Accordingly, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to determine that a higher-priced proposal with a Highest Performance rating on Past Performance may be more advantageous to the Government than a lower-priced proposal with also Highest Performance rating but without a record of Past Performance.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

a. Past performance information may be provided by the offeror.

b. Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition.

c. Past performance information will be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The evaluation board will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance competence assessment.

Factor III – Price A single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Fixed Price-Economic Price Adjustment contract will be awarded to the offer that is determined to present the best value to the Government.

Should competition prove inadequate to satisfy requirement to perform price analysis, cost analysis maybe required to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror’s price. The burden of proof for price credibility rests with the Offeror. Offerors are cautioned that, to the extent proposed price appear unrealistic, the Government may infer either a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the offeror.