Attachment_4_-_Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.docx

RFP #N6264517R0021

Attachment 4 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M.1.1. The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract resulting from the issuance of this solicitation to the responsible offeror submitting a proposal that is determined most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The evaluation of proposals will be based on an evaluation of the Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan, Pricing, and Business volumes submitted by each offeror. Contract award under this procurement will be made to the offeror 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: Past Performance Volume III: Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan Volume IV: Pricing (Reasonableness) Volume V: Business (Completeness)

M.1.2. Contract Award. In the evaluation of all offerors' proposals, the following evaluation factors will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as either Acceptable or Unacceptable: Conformance to Essential Characteristics, Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan, and Business (completeness). If an offeror’s Technical volume is determined to have failed under Conformance to Essential Characteristics, either initially or following discussions if they are conducted, the offeror’s proposal will receive no further consideration for award. If there are no other technically acceptable proposals all offerors will be included in discussions.

If an offeror’s Technical volume is determined to have passed the evaluation factor of Conformance to Essential Characteristics, then the offeror’s proposal will be further evaluated on a trade-off basis taking into consideration the following evaluation factors: Design Quality and Capability, Past Performance, and Pricing (reasonableness); evaluation of the Small Business Subcontracting and Participation and Business will occur separately and will not be used in a trade-off analysis. In doing so Past Performance is significantly more important than Design Quality and Capability. Additionally, the non-price Factors Design Quality and Capability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Pricing (reasonableness). Price reasonableness will be assessed for the grand total proposed price of all CLINs. In the event that two or more proposals are determined not to have any substantial non-price differences (i.e. Past Performance and Technical are substantially equivalent), award may be made to the lower priced proposal 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 the quality of Technical and/or Past Performance.

The Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan will be evaluated and determined to be either Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan does not apply to small business concerns under NAICS 339114. Award will only be made to a contractor that receives a rating of Acceptable for their Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan. A Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan with a rating of Unacceptable may be revised during discussions (if conducted and the offeror is in the competitive range) or through clarifications (if clarifications are held) and then may receive an Acceptable rating.

The Business volume will be evaluated for completeness. Award will only be made to a contractor that has submitted a complete Business volume. An incomplete Business volume may be revised during discussions (if conducted and 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, Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Participation, 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. Technical Evaluation Factor A: Conformance to Essential Characteristics – The Government will evaluate each offeror’s ability to meet the requirements outlined in Paragraph L.2.2.1.A. Offerors will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as described below:

M.2.3.2. If an offeror’s Technical volume is determined to have failed under Technical Evaluation Factor A, Conformance to Essential Characteristics, either initially or following discussions if they are conducted, the offeror’s proposal will receive no further consideration for award. If there are no other technically acceptable proposals all offerors will be included in discussions. If an offeror’s Technical volume is determined to have passed the evaluation factor of Conformance to Essential Characteristics, the Government will then evaluate Technical Evaluation Factor B, Design Quality and Capability.

M.2.3.3. Technical Evaluation Factor B: Design Quality and Capability: Based on the comprehensiveness, depth and quality demonstrated in the offeror’s discussion of design quality and capability, the Government will assess the risk to the Government of future non-performance of solicitation requirements by the offeror. The evaluation of Design Quality and Capability 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 Design Quality and Capability. Offerors will be evaluated on a best value basis using the ratings listed below:

M.2.3.4. 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. 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 the offeror’s execution of price, schedule and performance of work performed relative to the requirements of this solicitation, as well as information that addresses the demonstrated use of relevant business processes from other efforts. 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.2.4.10. 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 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and shall be assigned a rating of “Neutral Confidence”.

M.2.5. VOLUME III SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING AND PARTICIPATION PLAN.

M.2.5.1.1. All large business concerns under NAICS 339114will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition, and their level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The subcontracting plan requirement is not applicable to small business concerns qualified as such under the NAICS code, 339114, assigned to this solicitation. The Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan will be evaluated on an "Acceptable (Pass)" or "Unacceptable (Fail)" basis. The Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan will be evaluated on the following: (1) The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals; and (2) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform. An acceptable rating will consist of 5% or more small business participation. Awards will only be made to contractors whom have submitted an Acceptable Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan. An Unacceptable Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan 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 Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan volume evaluation will occur separately and will not be used in a tradeoff analysis.

M.2.5.2. The Small Business Subcontracting and Participation Plan will be evaluated as follows:

M.2.6. VOLUME IV PRICING.

M.2.6.1. Adequate price competition is expected for this acquisition. The Pricing Volume will be evaluated with consideration to the following factors for contract awards:

M.2.6.1.1. Reasonableness. The offeror’s Pricing volume will be examined to determine the degree to which the grand total proposed price for all 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. 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.2.6.1.2. No adjectival rating shall be utilized for evaluating price since price is not rated.

M.2.7. VOLUME V BUSINESS.

M.2.7.1. The Business Volume will be evaluated with consideration to the following factor for contract awards:

M.2.7.1.1. Completeness. The offeror's Business volume will be examined to ensure that it has been completed in accordance with Paragraph L.2.2.5. (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.2.7.2. The Business volume is considered to be complete if it includes all items required by Paragraph L.2.2.5. (including subparagraphs) of the solicitation and all items are completed in accordance with the instructions of Paragraph L.2.2.5. (including subparagraphs) of the solicitation.

M.2.7.3. The Business Volume may be considered incomplete if one or more items required by Paragraph L.2.2.5. (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.2.2.5. (including subparagraphs) of the solicitation.