SECTION M.docx

SECTION M

A BASIS FOR AWARD

1 The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer (LPTA).

2 As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, 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.

3 The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

4 An overall non-price factors rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

B EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors:

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Small Business Utilization & Participation Factor 3 – Safety Factor 4 – Technical Approach Factor 5 – Past Performance

The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

1. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements for Each Factor.

a Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

a. Provide a completed Section B of the solicitation.

b. Provide a completed Section J Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) Pricing Attachment.

c. Submit pricing data (Section B CLINs and Section J ELINs), in hard copy and in electronic format on a CD-ROM. Offerors shall utilize the ELIN attachments provided as Attachment J-0200000-01 to submit the ELIN pricing data in the format provided. Because the pricing evaluation will concentrate on the electronic files submitted, in the event of a discrepancy between the proposal hard copies and the proposal electronic copies, the proposal electronic copies will take precedence.

2. Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price by performing a price analysis based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements items (see Section B of the solicitation). The analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

i. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

ii. Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

iii. Comparison of market survey results.

iv. Fair and reasonable ELIN/unit pricing and identification of unbalanced pricing (unbalanced pricing will be established through the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated and poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government will not be able to determine fair and reasonable pricing if the proposed price is materially unbalanced between line items or sub-line items within a pricing period, or between line items or sub-line items for the basic requirement and any option period).

v. Consistent pricing submitted within the Section B and Section J Exhibit Line Item Number (ELIN) pricing.

vi. And/or any other methodology deemed appropriate by the Contracting Officer and consistent with FAR 15.404-1.

b Technical Factors:

Factor 1, Corporate Experience:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall submit a minimum of one (1), maximum of three (3) examples of recent and relevant projects similar in size, scope, and complexity, current or completed, within the last five (5) years. These projects should have been performed by the offeror as a prime contractor.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: If more than three (3) are submitted, only the first three will be reviewed in the evaluation. Relevant contract experience is considered to be a contract that involves the following: (1) performance period greater than 12 months; (2) if the contract is currently being performed, it shall have started at least one year from published RFQ date. If the contract is completed, it should have been completed no more than five years from the published RFQ date. (3) similar in scope includes performing services under NAICS code 485510, Charter Bus Industry; and (4) demonstrate a combination of two contracts that have an aggregate value of $500,000 annually or more. The contracts may be for the U.S. Government or other clients. Contract submissions shall not exceed two (2) pages (8.5” x 11”). The total number of pages for this factor is not to exceed eleven (11) pages. Only the first eleven (11) pages will be evaluated. For each project the offeror shall provide:

a) Contract number, title, and location

b) Dollar value; annually and contract life

c) Type of Contract (i.e. fixed price, cost reimbursable, or other – specify)

d) If applicable, identify base period and all option periods

e) Contract start date and completion date

f) Identify type of Services provided – similar scope, size & complexity (brief)

g) Client points of contact with current telephone and electronic mail addresses if available (Confidential clients are not acceptable and will result in non-consideration of the project.) Failure to provide an accessible point of contact and a correct telephone number may result in a lower rating.

h) Nature of firm’s responsibility (prime or sub)

i) Percentage of the work that your firm performed as the prime contractor or subcontractor

Evaluation Terms Defined:

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Factor 2, Technical Approach:

(i) Solicitation Submission Requirements:

a. Historical Small Business Utilization – Attachment D

b. Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SPCD) – Attachment E

1. All Offerors (both Other than Small Businesses (OTSB) AND SBs shall use Attachment D (Historical Small Business Utilization) to demonstrate their historical utilization of SBs. Attachment D shall be provided for each project submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience. Failure to submit Attachment D for each project submitted under Factor 1, Corporate Experience, or the failure to fully complete Attachment D may result in a deficiency.

2. All Offerors (both OTSBs and SBs) shall use Attachment E (Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SPCD)) to submit the following required information for evaluation of this factor:

· To demonstrate commitment to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract, identify all planned subcontractors by name that will be used to support each specific small business category (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB). Identify the type and complexity of product/service to be subcontracted, the estimated subcontract value, and the type of commitment (i.e., teaming agreement, letter of commitment, etc.) with each subcontractor.

· To demonstrate maximum practicable participation of small businesses, identify (in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value) the Offeror’s proposed small business participation. The minimum required small business participation (i.e. work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors) is 20% (this amount will be modified based on market research). All Offerors who are not able to meet the minimum total small business participation rate of 20% (of the total contract value) shall provide a detailed explanation why the minimum total small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

Small business Offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation rate through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and/or subcontracting with other small business concerns.

Offerors are encouraged to exceed this percentage and seek meaningful levels of participation in each of the small business categories (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) consistent with efficient contract performance. Offerors are required to provide a detailed explanation for the methods used to develop the small business participation rates.

Offerors simply proposing a 20% total small business participation rate without describing the methods will result in an Unacceptable overall rating.

If the Offeror does not intend to subcontract, provide a detailed explanation why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the small business objectives of this acquisition based on the following:

· The extent to which the Offeror is able to demonstrate a history of supporting Government policies concerning the utilization of small business concerns (including all of the various socioeconomic categories of small business, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) and the success in achieving goals established by subcontracting plans on prior contracts.

· The extent to which the Offeror has demonstrated an achievable commitment to use small businesses (including HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract in the SBPCD. The SBPCD will be evaluated to determine the extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified by name and socioeconomic category in the document and the quantitative degree to which small business concerns (including HUBZone, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) will participate relative to the total contract value. The complexity and variety of the work small business concerns will perform and the degree of commitment to use named sources through formal teaming agreements, letters of intent/commitment will be evaluated to assess achievability of the commitment. This minimum small business participation rate, through work performed by the small business prime and/or subcontracting with small businesses, shall exceed 20% of the total contract value, unless the Offeror provides a reasonable and well-documented explanation for why 20% small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

Factor 3. Safety

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR, DART and TRC Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors).

1. Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Include three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. The offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. If the offeror has no EMR or premium, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of the factor submission.

2. OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART and TRC rates, for any year, affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA, DART, and TRC rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

· Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

· OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

· Other sources of information available to the Government

1. Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years the offeror will submit EMR. If no EMR exists, the offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate explaining why not. If an insurance company-provided equivalent rate is provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of this selection factor. The board will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

2. OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: For the three previous complete calendar years, the offeror will submit their OSHA DART and TRC, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART and TRC rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

3. Other Sources of Information Available to the Government: Other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

Factor 4. Technical Approach

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements The Offeror shall submit the following:

a. Provide a staffing plan depicting roles of primary and secondary drivers and include a list all proposed operators with license expiration dates showing how your drivers meet the solicitation requirements in (Ref. List of Drivers, Bus Inventory, SOW Enclosure #2 – Photo Requirements and #3 – USSS Credential Spreadsheet Requirements). The staffing plan shall describe a recruitment plan that identifies how drivers will be acquired following the aforementioned guidance.

b. Describe how your firm can deliver the required twenty-six (26) 55-passenger coach buses with lavatories.

c. Submit a detailed inventory of buses that are owned and operated by your firm and/or buses owned and operated by subcontractor’s with whom you have a letter of commitment. Provide copies of all applicable letters of commitment. Inventories should contain, at a minimum, the following information: Owner name, fleet vehicle number, year, age, seating capacity, type, make, model, VIN number, mileage, length, GVW, wheel chair lift with number of tie downs (if applicable) and amenities as listed in the SOW (Ref. Bus Inventory attachment).

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: Acceptability will be based on the quality of the Offerors Technical and Management Approach. To receive a rating of “Acceptable” for this factor, the narrative must provide an explanation of how the offeror will meet the requirements. The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the offeror’s technical/management approach to provide the full range of support services described in the PWS. Simple statements that the offeror will fulfill the requirements without a detailed description of how an offeror will accomplish the work maybe insufficient to demonstrate that the offeror can perform the contract requirements, which may result in a technical rating of Unacceptable. Do not assume that the evaluator(s) is/are familiar with the technical approach of your company based on other contracts with this or another agency.

Factor 5. Past Performance

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Corporate Experience. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment C), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Eric T. Walker, via email at eric.t.walker@navy.mil prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Also, include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of recommendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/Entity Identifier numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.”

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and

- Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand