SECTION M.pdf

SECTION M – Evaluation Procedures

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1. Basis for Contract Award.

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR

15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300, and DLAD 15.300-90 to make an integrated assessment for a Tradeoff award decision. The Government intends to award at least one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the Tradeoff approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror(s) who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance/delivery of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary but may award without discussions. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

2. Factors and Subfactors and Relative Importance.

A. A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I. Past Performance/Delivery

Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated and the Government will make a determination of the relevancy and confidence level using the scales in Tables 1 and 2 as replicated below. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the Tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The offerors that provide the best value to the Government are based on the results of the evaluation criteria described in the paragraph below.

Factor II. Cost/Price

B. Relative Importance of Each Factor and Subfactor. Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past performance/delivery and cost/price. Past performance/Delivery will be rated more important than cost/price.

3. Proposal Evaluation. The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. Past Performance/Delivery Factor

The past performance/delivery assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record, along with on-time delivery. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including schedule, on-time delivery, and material conformance. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned:

Very Favorably: Present/Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Delivery is well below the stated solicitation requirements.

Favorably: Past/Present performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Delivery is at or near the stated solicitation requirements.

Somewhat Favorably: Past/Present performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Delivery is above the stated solicitation requirements.

Not Favorably: Past/Present performance efforts involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Delivery is well above the stated solicitation requirements.

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of products supported. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the reveiwed contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

1. Present/Past performance information shall be obtained from the Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), CPARS, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the past performance evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

RATING DEFINITION

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort and deliver on-time.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort and deliver items on-time.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort and deliver on-time.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort or deliver the items.

Offerors without a record of past performance/delivery or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

B. Cost/Price Factor The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated on a line by line basis for Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP will be calculated in accordance with the following:

- Reasonableness. Adequate price competition is expected to support the determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be utilized to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional cost data IAW FAR 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

- Balance. Unbalanced pricing is discussed in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or underestimated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items exist. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure a logical progression exists as related to price. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

- Total Evaluated Price. A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only and used to assist in determining the best value to the Government. The TEP will be evaluated as follows:

Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes. Based upon the total price proposed for items identified for pricing which are applicable to the basic requirements and other price-related issues. The TEP shall include all costs associated with providing the final items to the Government. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following:

All items are to be priced in the pricing spreadsheet of the RFP, at the quantities stated. The total evaluation price will be calculated on a line by line basis for the pricing provided for each base year and each option year by multiplying proposed price times estimated annual demand for each year.

Offerors are advised that the evaluation of item prices shall not obligate the government to award each item.

(End of Section M)