Section M_PCCIE_08Aug2022.pdf

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) PROCESS

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source

Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) five year contract with one-five year option for Emergency Maintenance (EM) and Preventative Maintenance (PM) for

Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) systems and associated equipment/infrastructure as a result of this solicitation.

A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), Purchase Description (PD), etc.), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the

Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those PWS requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor 1: Requirements Compliance

Description: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror adequately demonstrating a technically acceptable approach for the Requirements Compliance IAW PWS Paragraph 7. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate all requirements. The proposed approach will result in an acceptable/unacceptable rating if met.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror provides Support Agreements with the UPS maintenance organizations from Eaton, Vertiv and Schneider IAW PWS paragraph 7.

Subfactor 2: Program Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technically acceptable approach for Program Management. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate all requirements. The proposed approach will result in an acceptable/unacceptable rating if met.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates the following:

Efficient and executable administration roles and responsibilities for this contract’s management to include key personnel: prime contractor’s Program Manager, the prime contractor’s Contracts Manager, the prime contractors

Service Scheduler.

Efficient and effective process for worldwide support capability. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates effective processes to meeting PWS timeframes, dispatch requirements, communication, parts availability and equipment restoration for systems located in both CONUS and OCONUS locations. Offeror shall provide examples of at least one CONUS location and one overseas U.S. Base location at any of the following sites: Kadena AB, Japan; Osan AB, Korea, Ramstein AB, Germany; Diego Garcia Atoll, British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).

Demonstrate an efficient and effective process once a failed UPS system has been identified, (EM situation) from the initial call notification through resolution.

Demonstrate an efficient and effective process once a failed UPS system has been identified (EM situation) when notified on a weekend or outside of normal office duty hours.

Subfactor 3: Reporting Activities

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed approach for the Reporting Activities IAW PWS

Paragraph 12.3.1, 15.8. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate all requirements. The proposed approach will result in an acceptable/unacceptable rating if met.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an efficient and effective process for performing inventory reporting, documentation and submittal IAW PWS in paragraph 12.3.1, 15.8.

Subfactor 4: Awardable Task

Description: The offeror shall demonstrate their proposed approach for the Awardable Task. The proposed approach will result in an acceptable/unacceptable rating if met.

Measure of Merit: At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate all requirements to demonstrate an efficient and effective approach including step-by-step processes required for the following:

a. Scheduling Maintenance

b. Preventative Maintenance Inspection (PMI)

c. Conducting inventory

d. Closing maintenance actions

e. Utilizing the UPS OEM on multiple UPS Systems that will be provided in the site sheet.

i. These units are located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 442 (Tech Side)

1. Eaton, Model 9395 Serial Numbers: EJ384BAA07, EJ384BAA04, EJ384BAA02, EJ384BAA03

ii. These units are located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 442 (Utility Side)

1. Eaton, Model 93PM Serial Numbers: EK481UXX03, EK481UXX02, EK481UXX01, EK474UXX01

iii. These units are located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 730

1. Eaton, Model 9390 Serial Numbers: EA463CAA12, EA465CAA07

iv. This unit is located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 1028

1. Liebert, Model: 38SA060A0A00 Serial Number: 2101200662127020000

f. Utilizing a third party provider for EM/PM services that will be provided in the site sheet.

i. These units are located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 433

1. Liebert, NXL 40, Model: 40S400A0AAA32A Serial Numbers: D11C240014, D11C240015, D11D240002, D11D240003

ii. This unit is located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 444

1. Liebert, eXM Model: 47SA030DACG0S03, UPS SN: M18LZB0011

iii. These units are located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 445

1. Liebert, eXM Model: 47SA030DACG0S03, UPS SN: M18LZB0012

iv. These units are located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 731

1. Eaton, Model: 9155, Serial Number: BG236FBB06

v. This unit is located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 1030

1. Liebert, Model: eXM Model: 51SA050BAA00S03 Serial Number:

M18LUS0009

This information is provided in the site sheets found in the List of Documents, Exhibits, and other Attachments.

Subfactor 5: Sample Task

Description: The Sample Task is for evaluation purposes only. The offeror shall demonstrate their proposed approach for Sustainment Activities. The proposed approach will result in an acceptable/unacceptable rating if met.

Measure of Merit: At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate all requirements to demonstrate an efficient and effective approach for the following:

a. Scheduling a full AC/DC capacitor replacement

b. Performing a full AC/DC capacitor replacement with service report utilizing the OEM, on the following systems:

vi. This unit is located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 433

1. Liebert, NXL 40, Model: 40S400A0AAA32A Serial Numbers: D11C240014

vii. These units are located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 442 (Utility Side)

1. Eaton, Model 93PM Serial Number: EK481UXX03

Measure of Merit: The offeror shall demonstrate their proposed approach for Sustainment Activities. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall thoroughly substantiate all requirements to demonstrate an efficient and effective approach for the following:

a. Scheduling a full UPS battery replacement

b. Performing a full UPS battery replacement with service report utilizing a third party provider, on the following system:

viii. This unit is located at Buckley SFB, CO in Bldg. 1028

1. Liebert, Model: 38SA060A0A00 Serial Number: 2101200662127020000

This information is provided in the site sheets found in the List of Documents, Exhibits, and other Attachments.

3. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Cost/Price Factor

1. Cost or Pricing information

All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Proposal and Contract Documentation sections. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2. Reasonableness

The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing the Price List, and Fixed Price TEP Worksheets. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. At the sole discretion of the Government, additional Cost/Price analysis techniques may or may not be used 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 information IAW FAR Subpart 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

3. Balance

Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the unit prices are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. An offeror’s pricing proposal is unbalanced if one or more portions of the TEP are significantly less or greater, in relative terms, and a natural progression does not follow. A proposal that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Professional Employee

Compensation Plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements and allows the offeror to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Base labor rates, fringe, and overall benefits will be evaluated and compared against current standards. Lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may impair the offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees. This may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements which may lead to rejection of the proposal.

5. Approved Accounting System

As portions of the work issued under this contract will be other than fixed price the offeror shall have a Government approved accounting system. Failure to obtain Government approval of all necessary accounting systems may result in the offeror being found ineligible for award.

6. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

TEP – The TEP is the sum of pricing totals as specified below. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation of proposals and will be a consideration in the award decision. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only and does not constitute a promise by the Government as to work to be performed or ceiling amount for contract award. However, the awardee will be bound to the labor rates and pricing lists proposed in the Pricing Worksheets.

The TEP calculation for this acquisition will be established by adding together two separate components from the

List of Documents, Exhibits, and other Attachments:

1. Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2034 pricing worksheets

2. Fixed Price Labor Hour Rates applied to Government Notional Hours

The first component of the TEP will represent the majority of the contract requirements and the rates will be binding for the duration of the contract. Totals for each FY will be calculated by selecting random locations and unit types for each tab for CLIN 0001 – 0005. FY totals will then be combined together to represent a total value for each individual CLIN. The second component of the TEP will consist of firm-fixed fully-loaded labor hour rates multiplied by the government generated notional hours for CLIN 0006 – 0007. An undisclosed number of cells will be selected and remain consistent along all vendors and calculated in each tab. The sum of all CLINs will represent the total evaluated price.

Refer to the instructions tab when completing the Pricing Worksheets. All Offerors will be evaluated on the same basis and the Government will apply the offeror’s proposed amounts to the applicable locations, unit types, and multipliers in calculating the TEP. Details of this method and Government developed notional hours/quantities will not be revealed to the offeror, but the method will be applied consistently and equally to each offer.