Section M (DRAFT).pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

UK WIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES CONTRACT

WITHIN

UNITED STATES VISITING FORCES (USVF) WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM (UK)

25 April 2024

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. FAR 15.101 states that best value is obtained by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In this procurement, the Government will select the offerors with the Highest Technically Rated (HTR) proposal, based upon the results from the validated self-scoring matrices submitted by offerors. This evaluation methodology is not Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) because the Government will not be evaluating Cost/Price at the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) level.

1.1.1 Contracts may be awarded to the Offerors who are deemed qualified. In order to be considered qualified, the Government must determine (1) an Offeror to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1; (2) the Offeror’s proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation); and, (3) based on the evaluation factors, the Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government.

1.1.1.1 The award may be made to the five Offerors whose HTR proposals are determined to represent the best value to the Government. However, in the event of an unbreakable tie between the 5th and 6th highest-ranked offerors, as detailed in Paragraph 4.2 below, the Government reserves the right to either award to both offerors or neither.

1.1.2 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an assessment of all source selection evaluation criteria (described below). The Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. For the purpose of establishing the IDIQ Pool, the

Government anticipates awarding approximately 5 contracts. The number of contracts awarded is within the sole discretion of the Government.

1.3 IDIQ Ceiling. The overall ceiling of the IDIQ is estimated at $48M for 10 years. The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount. Funding will be determined at the individual task order level.

1.4 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order. The minimum guarantee for each awardee will be $2,500.00. A contractor that is awarded an IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any task order beyond the minimum guarantee.

1.5 Proposals Substantiation. Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated and the proposal would be unqualified and unawardable.

1.6 Discussions. The Government intends to issue the award without discussions. If the Government has questions pertaining to the offerors proposal, the Government may request clarifications in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2). Clarifications may be provided in the form of Evaluation Notices (ENs).

Offerors will be notified of their ranking and the award decision once the final award decision is made.

2.0 RESPONSIVENESS AND RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Responsiveness. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being non-responsive and ineligible for award.

The Government will review the proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the provided documentation to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of Contractor responsiveness.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal when making the determination of responsibility.

2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself based on the objective criteria described in Section L Instructions to Offerors.

The Offerors proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring. The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will validate the five (5) highest proposed self-scores. If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted as a result of Government validation, and the Offeror is no longer among the top 5 highest rated Offerors, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror, until a total of five Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores remain. The Government will validate the top-rated self-scores as described in Section 4.1 below. The five (5) Offerors with the HTR proposal will represent the best value to the Government.

3.2 Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factor will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Past Experience

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(C)(i), Price will not be evaluated during this source selection; Price will be evaluated for each individual task order.

4.0 Factor 1 – Past Experience.

4.1 Past Experience Evaluation. The Offerors proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring.

The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will validate the five (5) highest proposed self-scores. Offeror’s self-scores will be validated using the work samples provided. The Government will review the section of the work sample that is listed within the Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment X). If the substantiating information cannot be found within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc. the Government will not search for the substantiating information. If the Offerors score cannot be validated based on the work samples and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the score, potentially all the way down to zero (0) points. The Government will ONLY adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, not upward. As stated in 1.6, the Government does not intend to enter into discussions; therefore, the Government will not hold discussions with the Offeror to communicate downward adjustments. Adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government.

If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted, and the Offeror is no longer among the top 5 highest rated Offerors, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror, until a total of 5 Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores remain.

4.2 Ties. After validation of the top 5 rated self-scores, the Government will view the proposed self-score of the sixth top rated Offeror. If the proposed self-score of the sixth top rated Offeror is tied with the fifth top rated Government-validated score, then the Government will validate the proposed self-score of the sixth top rated Offeror. If a tie exists, the Government reserves the right to exclude or include each of the tied Offerors. The decision to exclude or include Offerors is the sole discretion of the Government.