Solicitation Section M.pdf

Solicitation Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1. Basis For Contract Award.

This is a FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) Part 12 Acquisition and Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 01 Apr 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures

5315.3 25 May 2018 will be utilized as applicable. These regulations are available electronically at the https://www.acquisition.gov/.

M.1.1.1. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose 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 is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M.1.1.2. A complete and signed Preface and Completed Signed RFP (Volume I) IAW L.3.1.

M.1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one Firm Fixed Price contract for the performance of the integrated solid waste management service requirement, for a fixed period of 5 years total (1 base year, and 4 option years) adding an additional 6 months extension period.

M.1.3. Discussions The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the procedures outlined in FAR 15.306 will be used.

M.1.4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The

Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

M.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND FACTORS

M.2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate proposals. The

Government will evaluate the first two lowest priced proposals for technical acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor I: Price

Factor II: Qualification Certifications

Subfactor 1: Historical Chamber of commerce documentation

Subfactor 2: Certifications, authorizations, licenses and permits

Subfactor 3: Legal Standing

Factor III: Technical

Subfactor 1: Organizational Chart

Subfactor 2: Management Plan

Factor IV: Past Performance

M.2.2 Evaluation Process: The Government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price contract to the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal (to include all evaluation criteria:

responsiveness, technical, and past performance). The evaluation process will be conducted in the following steps. Proposals must meet the requirements of each step to advance to the next step in the evaluation process. If at any point in Steps 2 through 5 a proposal is eliminated from the competition, the Government will go back and evaluate the next lowest priced proposal so there are two proposals at the start of each step:

Step 1: RESPONSIVENESS: Offeror’s will be evaluated for responsiveness as defined in

L.1, L.2, L.3.1, and in accordance with M.1.1. An Offeror determined to be non-responsive will be removed from competition and not considered for award.

Step 2: PRICE: For the purpose of conducting evaluations, the Government will first rank all proposals by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from lowest to highest. Next, the price evaluation team will evaluate the two lowest (total) priced proposals (taken from the

SCEB excel sheet), to determine completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness IAW M.3.1. The two lowest priced proposals (who are found to be complete, balanced, and reasonable) will move on to Step 3.

Step 3: QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATIONS: Offeror’s proposal volume II will be evaluated for acceptability as defined in M.3.2. An Offeror with an Unacceptable rating for this step will be removed from competition and not considered for award.

The two lowest priced acceptable proposals to this point will move on to Step 4.

Step 4: TECHNICAL ACCEPTIBILITY: The Offeror’s sent from Step 3 will be evaluated for technical acceptability. The technical evaluation team will accomplish evaluations IAW M.3.3. An Offeror with an Unacceptable rating for this step will be removed from competition and not considered for award. The two lowest priced acceptable proposals to this point will move on to Step 5.

Step 5: PAST PERFORMANCE: The Offeror’s sent from step 4 will then be evaluated for past performance. Past performance Evaluations will begin with the lowest priced

Offeror. Only Acceptable Past Performance offers will advance to Step 5.

Step 6: CONTRACT AWARD: The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make the best value contract award to the Offeror with the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable

(LPTA) proposal.

Table M.2.2 – Evaluation Process Rating Example

Offeror Responsivene ss

Pric e

Price

Reasonableness

Qualification

Certifications Technical

Past

Performance

A Responsive $60 Reasonable Acceptable Unacceptable Not Evaluated

B Unresponsive $62 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

C Responsive $65 Reasonable Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable

D Responsive $70 Reasonable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

E Responsive $73 Reasonable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

F Responsive $76 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

M.3. Evaluation Factors

M.3.1. Factor I: Price

The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes considering the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) including: Base Year and four (4) option periods and price for the potential 6 month extension covered by FAR clause 52.217-8- Option to Extend Services. The evaluation of this potential extension shall be accomplished by adding an additional 6 months using the same monthly prices as proposed for the final option period, to the total price for the basic requirement.

(Total Price for all priced CLINS) + (6 additional months at final option price) = TEP

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and completeness of the total evaluated price. The

Offeror shall price each option period, although the exercising of the options is a sole discretion of the Government and not guaranteed.

M.3.1.1. For the purpose of conducting evaluations, the Government, after checking each proposal for responsiveness in accordance with Step 1 listed above, will first rank all proposals by Total Price (TP) from lowest to highest. Total Price is the total from the completed SCEB excel sheet of all 5 years of the contract performance + potential 6 months exention.

M.3.1.2. IAW M.2.2, the two lowest priced (and responsive) proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness and balanced pricing (Proposal Volume II) in accordance with

FAR 15.404-1.

M.3.1.3. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

1) The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon reasonableness of the total price proposed for performance of the requirement.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, and separately priced line items, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3) Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a comparison between the total price and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

M.3.2. Factor II: Qualification Certifications

The Government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the Offeror’s qualification certification proposals (Proposal Volume III) on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below.

M.3.2.1. Subfactor 1: Historical Chamber of commerce documentation

Description: This subfactor is to ascertain contractor registration to local Chamber of Commerce and provide the issuing office with information regarding company's historical events.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror's proposal includes a copy of the

Historical Chamber of commerce documentation. The document's issuance date must not be older than 120 calendar days from the date of the offer.

M.3.2.2. Subfactor 2: Certifications, authorizations, licenses and permits

Description: This subfactor evaluates:

- Current ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 14001 Certificates;

- Current Refuse Transportation Permits and authorization for all types of refuse to be picked-up and disposed;

- Licenses to perform the service in accordance with Host nation Legislation;

- Authorization to manage Hazardous Refuse as per current and future European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) regulations.

- Listing of authorized Disposal Sites intended to be used, along with copies of Authorization

Certification for such sites.

TABLE M.3.2 - QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror's proposal provides a copy of the current abovementioned certifications, authorizations, licenses and permits.

M.3.2.3. Subfactor 3: Legal Standing Description: This subfactor evaluates Offerors capacity to comply with law requirements concerning payments and social insurance requirements.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes a copy of the

“Documento Unico di Regolarita’ Contributiva (DURC)” for personnel (direct hire and/or self-employed/subcontractors). The document’s issuance date must not be older than 120 calendar days from the date of the offer.

M.3.3. Factor III: Technical The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals (Proposal

Volume IV) using the combined technical/risk rating method shown in Table 1 below. The

Government will assign one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the

Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M.3.3.1. Subfactor 1: Organizational Chart: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s

Organizational Chart.

Measure of merit: This standard is met when the Offeror provides an organizational chart that successfully:

i. Describes the total number of personnel and identifies the key positions responsible for services, including the quality control position;

ii. Demonstrates the availability of English speaking personnel (fluent in speaking and writing) who will be available within the Company Headquarters Monday through Friday from 08:00 to

17:00hrs and;

iii. Demonstrates the availability of English speaking (fluent in speaking and writing) key personnel performing on-site operations, who will be available Monday through Friday from 08:00 to 17:00hrs (CET Central European Time).

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.3.2. Subfactor 2: Management Plan

This subfactor will assess the Offeror’s approach for high quality and highly efficient management structure and processes throughout the life the contract period of performance.

Offerors shall provide a narrative description of the roles, responsibilities and key personnel authorities of the individuals/offices involved in the contract.

Measure of merit: This standard is met when the Management Plan successfully demonstrates:

i. That the Offeror has a complete understanding of the requirements of this contract;

ii. That the Offeror has an execution plan containing sufficient resources to fulfill the needs of this

Performance Work Statement.

iii. That the Offeror has a quality control system which clearly demonstrates the understanding of the quality control requirements of this contract. This submission must describe in detail the methods to be used by the contractor to assess and correct the performance of the services in accordance with the standards outlined within the Performance Work Statement and it’s attachments.

M.3.4. Factor IV: Past Performance:

This Factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposal (Proposal Volume V) for experience with the same work/trades and complexity as the requirement.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes evidence of three

(3) similar projects successfully performed within the last three (3) years from the date of this solicitation where the Offeror was solely responsible for the entire yearly service performance that involved refuse collection of the same or similar wastes provided in the PWS and related recycling services valuated at least €250,000.00.

Table M.3.4.– Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.