Section M - Basis of Award - Evaluation Critera.pdf

-1-

Section M

ADDENDUM TO FAR PART 52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFERORS-

COMPETITIVE ACQUISTIONS

1. Basis for Award

The Government intends to award a single IDIQ to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

Phase I-A, Written Questions

Phase I-B, On-the-spot oral questions

Phase II, Slide Presentation/Five Elements/Interactive Dialogue and Past Performance

Phase III, Pricing

Phase I Evaluation Criteria, when combined, are more important than Phase II evaluation criteria, when combined. All non-price evaluation criteria, when combined, are significantly more important than Phase III – Price. As the nonprice merits of competing Offeror’s written answers and slide presentations approach equal, Phase III will become more important in the award decision. However, award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced proposal.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Both the voluntary advisory evaluation (Phase I) and the Phase II will be performed using confidence ratings (Table 1).

Table 1 – Confidence Ratings

High Confidence

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence

The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, does not propose a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

-2-

The Government anticipates selecting the best-suited Offeror from initial responses, without engaging in exchanges with Offerors. Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit their best technical solutions and price in response to this RFP.

Once the Government determines the Offeror that is the best-suited (i.e., the apparent successful Offeror), the Government reserves the right to communicate with only that Offeror to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize a task order with that Offeror. These issues may include technical and price. If the parties cannot successfully address any remaining issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to communicate with the next best-suited Offeror based on the original analysis and address any remaining issues. Once the Government has begun communications with the next best-suited Offeror, no further communications with the previous Offeror will be entertained until after the task order has been awarded. This process shall continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a task order is awarded.

2.1. Phase I and Phase II, Criteria 1

The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated based upon their understanding of the objectives of the SOW and planned execution of the project. This refers to the manner in which the Offeror proposes to plan, manage, control, and provide the services and deliverables. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a solid understanding of addressing anticipated problems, issues, constraints, organizations and system(s) involved and the approach and methodologies proposed to ensure successful accomplishment of all tasks in the SOW will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach based on their demonstrated understanding of the objectives of the SOW and planned execution of the project and will be assigned a confidence rating. The following elements will be evaluated:

Element 1. Recruitment Program and Vetting Applicants Element 2. Medical Qualification and Review Process Element 3. Training and Qualification Program Element 4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan Element 5. Phase In/Phase Out Transition Plan

2.2. Phase II, Criteria 2, Past Performance

The Government will assess its confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the work, by evaluating the Offeror’s demonstrated performance from three contracts/orders performed within the past five (5) years (from the date of this RFP release). Prior performance will be evaluated to assess the expectation of successful outcomes based on the extent to which the Offeror has successfully performed on systems similar to the portal requirements described in the Statement of Work.

-3-

1. This portion will be evaluated on a pass or fail basis. The past performance evaluation factor assesses the Offeror's ability to supply products and services that meet USMS' needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

Offerors shall submit up to (3) past performance summaries of Government projects worked on within the past five (5) years of similar size, scope, and complexity. Each narrative past performance summary shall contain the following information:

a. Contract/task order title

b. Contract/task order number

c. Type of contract (e.g., CPAF, FFP, T&M, etc.)

d. Planned period of performance

e. Actual period of performance

f. Original value

Past Performance will be evaluated and verified utilizing assessments from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

PAST

PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTION

PASS

The offeror has demonstrated a satisfactory or better rating in CPARS for each of the past performance projects that have been submitted.

FAIL

The offeror has one or more ratings in CPARS that is less than satisfactory for one or more of the past performance projects that have been submitted

UNKNOWN

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 will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of Pass/Fail, “Unknown” shall be considered “Pass”

2.3. Phase III, Criteria 3, Price

Each price quote will be evaluated on the basis of price reasonableness and completeness.

Price must be determined as a fair market price in order to be reasonable.

Offerors must submit one (1) copy of their Pricing Schedule in accordance with this solicitation. Failure to submit the price proposal in the format stated in the pricing schedule

-4-will result in the proposal being considered non-conforming to the solicitation and the offer will not be further considered for award. No modifications to the template are authorized.

The Offeror must provide a “total” price for all products and/or services to include listing the prices for base and each of the option periods. Failure to submit a total price and/or any price for any of the CLINs will result in the proposal being considered non-conforming to the solicitation and the offer will not be further considered for award.