Attachment_4_-_Section_M_-_Evaluation_factors_for_Award_Final.docx

RFP #N6264517R0009

Attachment 4 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M.1.1. The Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts resulting from the issuance of this solicitation to those responsible offerors submitting proposals that are determined most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government has complete discretion to determine the number of awards. The evaluation of proposals will be based on an evaluation of the Technical, Past Performance, Pricing and Business volumes submitted by each offeror. The Government intends to make multiple contract awards under this solicitation to allow for maximum competition for future Delivery Order awards. Contract awards under this procurement will be made to the offerors determined to be the best value to the Government. The evaluation of proposals will be based on the following factors:

Volume I: Technical

Volume II (Evaluation Factor C): Past Performance Volume III: Pricing Evaluation D: Fill Rate and Reasonableness Volume IV: Business Evaluation Factor E: Completeness

M.1.2. Contract Awards. In the evaluation of all offerors' proposals, Evaluation Factors A and E will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. If an offeror’s technical volume is determined to have failed under Evaluation Factor A, either initially or following discussions if they are conducted, the offeror’s proposal will receive no further consideration for award unless there are no other technically acceptable proposals. If an offeror’s technical volume is determined to have passed Evaluation Factor A, then the offeror’s proposal will be further evaluated on a trade-off basis taking into consideration evaluation factors B through D; evaluation of Factors A and E will occur separately and will not be used in a trade-off analysis. In doing so Factor B – Description of Program Management Strategy and Approach is significantly more important than Factor C - Past Performance. Additionally, the non-price Factors B and C, when combined, are significantly more important than evaluation Factor D - Fill Rate and Reasonableness. Fill Rate will be assessed for the grand total fill rate of all assemblages and price reasonableness will be assessed for the grand total price of all assemblages. The closer the merits of the evaluation Factors B (Description of Program Management Strategy and Approach) and C (Past Performance) are to one another, the greater will be the importance of Pricing in making the award determination. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest priced offeror if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted due to a higher fill rate and/or the quality of evaluation Factors B (Description of Program Management Strategy and Approach) and/or C (Past Performance). A price premium may also be considered to facilitate the award of contracts to two or more offerors, thus gaining the advantages associated with increased competition for future Delivery Orders.

The Business volume will be evaluated for completeness (Factor E). Awards will only be made to contractors that have submitted complete Business volumes. An incomplete Business volume may be revised during discussions (if the offeror is in the competitive range) or through clarifications (if clarifications are held) and then may be considered to be complete.

M.1.3. Competitive Range. In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), “Competitive Range”, the Government will evaluate all proposals and the Government will establish a competitive range. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range comprised of all the most highly rated proposals. The Contracting Officer may further reduce the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Discussions may be in person, by telephone, or in writing at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS

M.2.1. Technical, Past Performance, Pricing and Business volumes submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in Section M.2. and subparagraphs.

M.2.2. Information will only be evaluated if it is submitted in the appropriate Volume. For example, Past Performance information provided in the Technical volume will not be evaluated.

M.2.3. VOLUME I. Technical.

M.2.3.1. Evaluation Factor A: Quality Control Plan – The government will evaluate each Quality Control Plan based on the requirements outlined in Paragraph L.2.2.1.A. Offerors will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

M.2.3.2. Evaluation Factor B: Description of Program Management Strategy and Approach: Based on the comprehensiveness, depth and quality demonstrated in the Description of Program Management Strategy and Approach, the Government will assess the risk to the Government of future non-performance of solicitation requirements by the offeror. Evaluation Factor B will be evaluated specifically based on the requirements outlined in Paragraph L.2.2.1.B. and subparagraphs. Failure to address any of the requirements of Paragraph L.2.2.1.B. and subparagraphs will reflect negatively upon the offeror’s rating for Evaluation Factor B. Offerors will be evaluated on a best value basis using the ratings listed below:

M.2.3.3. The Government will not assume that the offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the Technical volume.

M.2.4. VOLUME II (Evaluation Factor C). PAST PERFORMANCE.

M.2.4.1. The Government will first evaluate each Past Performance Information sheet to determine whether the information listed is recent. A determination of “Not Recent” may be made based solely on the information provided on the Past Performance Information Sheet. The Government may obtain additional information from the POC named on the Past Performance Information Sheet to assist in making a recency determination.

M.2.4.2. Recency shall be evaluated as follows:

M.2.4.3. The Government will then evaluate each recent Past Performance Information Sheet to determine whether the information listed is relevant. A determination of “Not Relevant” may be made based solely on the information provided on the Past Performance Information Sheet. The Government may obtain additional information from the POC named on the Past Performance Information Sheet to assist in making a relevancy determination.

M.2.4.4. Relevancy shall be evaluated as follows:

M.2.4.5. Finally, the Government will review recent and relevant Past Performance to determine the probability of success in performing work specific to the requirements of this solicitation as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required and will not be provided; rather, the past performance confidence assessment is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. This evaluation shall entail an examination of items such as but not limited to offeror’s execution of price, schedule and performance of work performed relative to the requirements of this solicitation, as well as information that addresses its demonstrated use of relevant business processes from other efforts (i.e. pricing practices, pricing and sales histories, customary discounts, market condition impacts). Both the quality and the quantity of supplies provided will be considered when establishing a past performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

M.2.4.6. The Government may contact POCs listed on the Past Performance Information Sheets to obtain information regarding past performance. The Government is not restricted from evaluating and considering other recent and relevant Past Performance information in its possession. Past Performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, such as PPIRS and interviews with Contracting Officer’s Representatives.

M.2.4.7. The past performance confidence assessment shall be evaluated as follows:

M.2.4.8. A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

M.2.4.9. Based on the risk of future non-performance presented to the Government, a Past Performance Confidence Assessment of the offeror’s recent/relevant Past Performance will be assigned. The Government will not assume that the offeror possesses any Past Performance unless it is specified in the Past Performance Volume.

M.2.5. VOLUME III. PRICING.

M.2.5.1. Adequate price competition is expected for this acquisition. The Pricing Volume will be evaluated with consideration to the following factors for contract awards:

M.2.5.1.1. Evaluation Factor D: Fill Rate and Reasonableness. The offeror’s Pricing volume will be examined to determine the degree to which the grand total proposed price for all assemblages (CLINs) represents a fair and reasonable price. The pricing volume will be evaluated using any combination of techniques identified in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to include, but not limited to, competition, market research, historical prices paid and an IGCE. Availability will be examined to identify total fill rate percentage; Unit prices may also be examined to identify unbalanced pricing, unusually high or low price estimates, inconsistent pricing patterns, and/or potential misunderstandings of the solicitation requirements.

M.2.6. VOLUME IV (Evaluation Factor E). BUSINESS.

M.2.6.1. The Business Volume will be evaluated with consideration to the following factor for contract awards:

M.2.6.1.1. Completeness. The offeror's Business volume will be examined to ensure that it has been completed in accordance with Paragraph L.2.2.4. (including subparagraphs) and submitted in accordance with Paragraph L.3. and subparagraphs. Awards will only be made to contractors whom have submitted complete Business volumes. An incomplete Business volume may be revised during discussions (if the offeror is in the competitive range) or through clarifications (if clarifications are held) and then may be considered to be complete. The Business volume evaluation will occur separately and will not be used in a tradeoff analysis.

M.2.6.2. The Business volume is considered to be complete if it includes all items required by Paragraph L.2.2.4. (including subparagraphs) of the solicitation and all items are completed in accordance with the instructions of Paragraph L.2.2.4. (including subparagraphs) of the solicitation.

M.2.6.3. The Business Volume may be considered incomplete if one or more items required by Paragraph L.2.2.4. (including subparagraphs) of the solicitation are not submitted and/or one or more items is not completed in accordance with the instructions of Paragraph L.2.2.4. (including subparagraphs) of the solicitation.