Section M (Evaluation Approach).pdf

Section M – Evaluation Approach

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

1. This is a full and open competition acquisition for a hybrid Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) and Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract. This is a best value trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Award will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to provide the best value trade-off to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the following three (3) evaluation factors: (I) Technical; (II) Past Performance;

and (III) Cost/Price. The Technical Factor is of primary importance and is slightly more important than the Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance Factor is slightly more important than the Cost/Price factor. The non- Cost factors, Technical and Past Performance, when combined are more important than the Cost/Price factor. As the difference between the non-cost factors decreases, the importance of the Cost/Price factor increases. Offerors are thus cautioned that best value trade-off award(s) may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

2. The base period of performance is three (3) months after contract award. Option 1 contains a period of performance of thirteen (13) months from the exercise of Option 1. Option 2 contains a period of performance of three (3) years from the exercise of Option 2.

3. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award(s) without discussions. If discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range will be established and comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals (unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2)) based on the evaluation criteria identified within Section M of this Request for Proposal (RFP). After completion of discussions with each offeror in the competitive range (if conducted) and in accordance with FAR 15.307(b), all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a specified period to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

4. The RFP includes a Performance Work Statement (PWS), to include PWS Attachment I. Offerors must be able to perform all areas of the PWS, including each option, to be eligible for a contract award. It is imperative that offerors expressly provide that their proposal(s) is valid for a 90 day period after the date of the RFP response date.

5. The Solicitation will close at 11:59AM EDT on 27 July 2022. No proposals will be accepted after that time. If the Offeror experiences technical difficulties when submitting their proposal, the Contracting Office should be notified in writing prior to the Solicitation closing for assistance.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS EVALUATION APPROACH

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to further evaluate each proposal. Award(s) will be made to the offerors whose proposals are determined to provide the greatest assessed value to the Government based upon the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Evaluation Approach The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Preliminary Design Plan

b. Understanding of Work to be accomplished

Technical Evaluation Subfactor (a) (Preliminary Design Plan) outweighs Subfactor (b) (Understanding of the Work to be accomplished).

Subfactor (a) – Preliminary Design Plan

This subfactor evaluates offeror’s Preliminary Design Plan. The Preliminary Design Plan shall confirm the ability to fabricate, deliver, and commission the Mach 6+ Rig. The Preliminary Design Plan shall generally convey the rig system layout with associated components. All elements of the Preliminary Design Plan shall be clearly labelled.

The Preliminary Design Plan shall also take into consideration previously existing laboratory equipment and ground floor plans as provided in the PWS and PWS Attachment I. The Preliminary Design Plan shall also describe the technical approach planned in order to meet each requirement in C.3 of the PWS. Each requirement shall be addressed in the same order as the PWS in order to facilitate the evaluation with ease. Details such as model numbers and exact equipment specifications are not required to be provided within offeror’s responses, however, general types of equipment, design, fabrication methods to be used, and how these methods will meet each requirement should be clearly stated.

Subfactor (b) – Understanding of the Work to be Accomplished

This subfactor evaluates offerors’ understanding of the work to be performed set forth in the PWS. Offeror’s grasp and understanding of the methods and techniques required to perform in the technical areas set forth in the PWS.

This subfactor has three (3) elements:

(i) Completeness and Accuracy - The proposal indicates an understanding of the technical areas and contractor responsibilities set forth in the PWS. The proposal reflects the Contractor’s required actions to successfully complete all areas of the PWS.

(ii) Clarity – The proposal is clearly worded and unambiguous.

(iii) Soundness of Approach – The proposal describes accepted practices and demonstrates processes and procedures used to meet the requirements of the PWS.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal will address each subfactor as it applies to the PWS. The Technical element of the evaluation shall be based solely on information furnished by the vendor. The Government is not responsible for locating or securing any information, which is not identified in the proposal. To ensure sufficient information is available, vendors must furnish as part of their proposal all descriptive material (such as cuts, illustrations, drawings, or other information) necessary for the Government to determine whether the required services meet or exceeds the performance characteristics and specifications of the requirement. The SST will evaluate the offeror’s proposal against the minimum requirements stated within Section M to determine the rating of the proposal using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table below.

Offerors must receive a rating of no less than “Acceptable” in Technical evaluation factors in order to receive an award under this RFP. If an Offeror receives less than an “Acceptable” rating in the Technical Factor, the remainder of the proposal, including the past performance, cost/price, and Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations volumes, shall not be evaluated.

Based on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies noted above, the SST shall assign to each technical factor/subfactor a combined technical/risk rating using the following adjectival rating scale:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table

Technical-Management Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements, contains one or more deficiencies, and is unawardable.

Definitions

Evaluation Findings are the written observations/judgments regarding the individual merits of the proposal against the solicitation requirements.

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See

FAR 15.001

Rating is the adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-Cost/Price Factors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Terms and Conditions Concerns are issues related to any of the contract provisions in the solicitation.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation Approach The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully fulfilling the requirement. The following approach will be taken in the evaluation of past performance:

(a) The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be required to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three (3) years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the Contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local Government or commercial contracts for same or similar services under the same North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541330 – Engineering Services or other related NAICS codes similar in complexity and scope to the efforts required by this RFP.

Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three (3) years prior to the issue date of the RFP but may include performance data generated during the past three (3) years without regard to the contract award date.

(b) Offerors shall submit the first page of Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The offeror shall provide past performance information on a minimum of two (2) and no more than four (4) contracts of a similar nature. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

(c) The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy, quality, and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of supply, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(ii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from interviews, Contracting Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Factor 3: Cost/Price Evaluation Approach The intention of the Government is to award a contract utilizing a hybrid FFP and CPFF contract type.

1. For the FFP portion of the requirement (Base and Option 2), the Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposed price is determined to be unreasonable. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b), certified cost or pricing data is not required. Therefore, prices agreed upon will be based on adequate price competition.

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation will ensure a fair and reasonable price.

2. For the CPFF portion of the requirement (Option 1), the Government will determine cost reasonableness for this effort on the basis of the competitive offers received, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government will also evaluate cost realism of the offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) to determine the probable cost of performance. The probable cost may differ from the proposed and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal.

The base period and all option periods shall be included in the cost/price calculation. Should the Government determine proposed costs are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

Cost Realism Requirements:

1): Probable Cost is the Government’s estimation of the cost of completing the contract using the offeror’s technical approach, adjusted by any additional cost the Government, including use of the Government facilities. In evaluating this area the following criteria will be used:

(a) The offeror’s proposed rates, factors, and expenses will be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward-pricing procedures, i.e. negotiated forward-pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors Contractors ordinarily utilize in proposals if no negotiated forward-pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors Contractors ordinarily utilize in proposals if no negotiated forward-pricing agreement exists. This includes indirect expense rates, projected rates, and projected expense pools.

(b) The rates and factors shall then be applied to the quantitative analyses of the labor hours, travel, and other direct cost factors which shall be proposed to accomplish the required efforts for the base effort and all options.

(c) Probable cost shall include a consideration of the evaluated quantitative and qualitative proposal in relation to the costs proposed against that resource mix. Probable cost shall include a comparison of proposed rates with factors, as determined by the Government to be equitable. These analyses serves as basis for determining the amount of risk inherent in an offeror’s proposal.

(d) The offeror shall ensue that a complete breakdown of costs is provided by major Subcontractors. Major subcontractors are designated as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten

(10) percent or more of the prosed effort. A complete evaluation of major Subcontractors’ probable cost will be performed in the same manner as the offeror’s as defined in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) and this paragraph.

(e) The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) and subline Item Numbers (SLINs) costs, including any potential options.

(f) Contractor support may be utilized to support proposal evaluation in the a non-decision making capacity.

(h) A competitive range may be established based on the ratings of this factors.

The Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposed cost is determined to be unreasonable or unrealistic. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b), certified cost or pricing data is not required. Therefore, prices agreed upon will be based on adequate price competition. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation will ensure a fair and reasonable price. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the realism of the offeror’s proposed costs in relation to the offeror’s technical approach. The offeror’s proposed cost will be evaluated by determining what the Government predicts the offer’s approach would most probably cost the Government when the work performed under the contract is completed. To the degree that the Government’s most probable cost estimate exceeds the offeror’s proposed cost, the cost will be adjusted upward for the purposed of evaluation only.