SP0600-15-R-0406_Enclosure_2_-_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

SP0600-15-R-0406 – Enclosure 2

EVALUATION METHOD

EVALUATION PROCESS, FACTORS, EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATINGS

The resultant contract will be a firm fixed price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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 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. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical commitments or price may indicate a lack of understanding of the requirements and may receive lower technical ratings.

The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced evaluated offer. In determining the best value Tradeoff Source Selection Process to the Government, technical performance and past performance factors are significantly more important than the evaluated price. The Government will award a contract to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the most advantageous and best overall value to the Government, technical, price and other factors considered. The Government will determine best overall value based on an evaluation of the following factors in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 - Technical Proposal Factor 2 - Past performance Proposal Factor 3 - Price Proposal Factor 4 - Socioeconomic Proposal Factor 5 - AbilityOne Proposal (formerly called Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (JWOD))

Technical and past performance factors are significantly more important than price. To the extent that offerors’ proposals are evaluated as close to similar in technical merit, the evaluated past performance is more likely to become a determining factor for award. To the extent that offerors’ proposals are evaluated as close or similar in technical and past performance merit, the evaluated price is more likely to become a determining factor for award. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Listed below are the evaluation factors in order of importance along with evaluation criteria.

Factor 1: Technical Proposal

The proposal will be evaluated based on how well it conforms to the instructions specified in Enclosure 1 and to the requirements as stated in the PWS in Enclosure 3. The PWS provides a description of the functions required to accomplish the performance requirements of the PWS. A proposal will be evaluated on how clearly and precisely it demonstrates understanding and ability to successfully perform all of the requirements of the PWS and how its proposed approach meets or exceeds the requirements of the PWS. Additionally, it will be

Procurement Sensitive

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 evaluated for how well it demonstrates innovation in its technical approach, a clear understanding of the requirement, effective quality control and ability to meet the schedule specified in the PWS. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical commitments or price may be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements.

The technical volume may be rated as outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal or unacceptable as compared to the requirement identified in the PWS.

Note: Not all ratings may be considered as equal, e.g., one outstanding proposal can be considered more advantageous than another outstanding proposal.

Factor 2: Past Performance Proposal

The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance based upon what is presented in the Past Performance Worksheets submitted by the contractor and any relevant information. In doing this, the Government may consider information in the offeror’s proposal and information obtained from other sources, including past and present customers and their employees, other subcontractors, and any others who may have useful information. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history shall receive a neutral evaluation for past performance.

Past performance shall be rated based on performance for work that is similar in scope to the requirements identified in the PWS including quality, timeliness, and business relations. Not all ratings are considered equal, e.g.,. a high rating for one proposal in a specific factor can be more advantageous than the same high rating for that same factor on another proposal. A rating of satisfactory confidence or higher on past performance will not result in a favorable assessment of an otherwise unacceptable proposal.

The past performance volume shall receive a rating of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence/neutral. Ratings assigned with respect to relevancy and recency shall be either relevant or not relevant, and recent or not recent.

Performance Confidence Assessment - The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS and commercial sources as well as interviews with Government customers and commercial clients. It may also include interviews with any other sources known to the Government and any other sources of information available. The performance assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources.

Recency Assessment - An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the project effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this Notice of Fair Opportunity and must be at least 25% complete based on performance period. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Projects that are not recent according to the criteria stated above shall not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment - The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those previous or current contracts relate to the description of work in the Notice of Fair Opportunity. A relevant contract is one that illustrates experience in similar activities required to fulfill the services specified in the PWS and include similarity of service/support, complexity, value, and contract type. More relevant past performance is considered a stronger predictor of future success and has more influence on the past performance confidence than past performance that is less relevant. The Government will not be bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will not consider information on projects deemed to be “not relevant” to the current acquisition.

Factor 3: Price Proposal

Technical and past performance factors are significantly more important than price. The

Government will award a contract to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and represents the most advantageous and best overall value to the Government, technical, price and other factors considered.

Offerors should submit labor category/categories, hours and hourly rates for individuals preforming these services for the purposes of evaluating pricing. Evaluation of offer prices will include a calculation of the total cost to the Government for the base and option periods.

Additionally the government is requesting pricing for the cost for a possible extension for up to 6 month extension when clause 52.217-8 applies; however the cost of an extension is not included in the total evaluated price.

Total offer prices will be compared with competitor pricing, current contract prices, market research, Government estimates, GSA Schedule pricing, previous pricing, market indices, Contracting Officer’s knowledge of market prices, and other pricing indicators when applicable.

Prices shall be analyzed to determine whether prices are fair and reasonable. The Government will ensure Cost Realism.

The Government is more concerned with obtaining a superior technical proposal than selecting the lowest evaluated price. However, the Government will not make an award at a price premium considered disproportionate to the benefits associated with one technical proposal over another. To the extent that offerors’ proposals are evaluated as close or similar in technical and past performance merit, the evaluated price is more likely to become a determining factor for award.

Offerors should submit labor category/categories, hours and hourly rates for individuals preforming these services for the purposes of evaluating option period and, when applicable, extension prices. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Unrealistic price proposals may be viewed as an indication that a contractor lacks of understanding of the requirements and may result in exclusion from the competitive range. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Travel requirements, if required (See Enclosure 3/PWS), in support of this task order will be performed on a cost-reimbursable basis. Travel cost will not be included in the evaluated price for the requirement itself as travel reimbursement will be performed in accordance with the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JTR), and FAR 31.205-46.

A Reverse Auction may be required as stated in FAR 52.215-9023 of Enclosure 1. An offeror’s final auction price at the close of the Reverse Auction shall be considered its final proposal revision.

Factor 4: Socioeconomic Proposal

The Government will evaluate the extent of an offeror’s proposed use of small businesses, HUBZone, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), economically disadvantaged women-owned small business concerns (EDWOSB), and historically black colleges/universities or minority institutions (HBCUs/MIs). Evaluation will be based on the degree to which an offeror’s proposal demonstrates the commitment to use, in performance of the offered requirements, these businesses. The factor is separate and distinct from the subcontracting plan, if one is required, as well as the factor to promote use of the AbilityOne (formerly called Javits- Wagner-O’Day (JWOD)) entities. Socioeconomic Proposals that demonstrate a strong commitment to affording entities in one or more of the categories described above a real opportunity to participate shall be rated more favorably than those that demonstrate lesser or no such commitment. The Socioeconomic volume shall be rated as acceptable or unacceptable.

DLA Energy NOTE: Whether or not required to submit a subcontracting plan by the clause 52.219-9, all offerors shall submit a socioeconomic proposal. The offeror’s proposals for socioeconomic support will be made a part of any resulting contract for use in determining how well the Contractor has adhered to its socioeconomic plan. This plan will be monitored by the Small Business Office of the Defense Logistics Agency Energy (DLA Energy) as a means of assisting the Contracting Officer in determining how well the Contractor has in fact performed.

This determination will then be used as a consideration prior to option exercise and future source selection decisions. Performance on prior contracts in subcontracting with and assisting small businesses, HUBZone, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), economically disadvantaged women-owned small business concerns (EDWOSB), and historically black colleges/universities or minority institutions (HBCUs/MIs) will be part of past performance evaluation.

Factor 5: AbilityOne Proposal

In accordance with DLAD 52.215-9005, an offeror that proposes or demonstrates a higher percentage, complexity level, and variety of participation by AbilityOne qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely disabled as subcontractors, beyond those items for which AbilityOne entities are the mandatory source, will generally receive an acceptable rating on this factor during the source selection process. Offerors' proposals for such support will be made a part of any resulting contract for use in determining how well the contractor has adhered to its plan. This plan will be monitored by the cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency activity as a means of assisting the contracting officer in determining how well the contractor has in fact performed. This determination will be one factor used in the placement of orders against multiple-award contracts and/or the exercise of options in the contract's follow-on years (as applicable). Performance on prior contracts in subcontracting with and assisting AbilityOne entities will be used as an element of past performance evaluation in subsequent source selection decisions. The AbilityOne volume shall be rated as acceptable or unacceptable.

Factors 4 and 5, the small business evaluation factors (i.e. Socioeconomic and AbilityOne), will be evaluated separately and shall utilize the ratings listed in Table below.

Small Business Factor Rating Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets small business requirements/objectives and indicates an adequate approach to providing opportunities to businesses identified under the socioeconomic plan or AbilityOne factors.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet small business requirements/objectives and has not demonstrated an adequate approach to providing opportunities to businesses identified under the socioeconomic plan or AbilityOne factors.

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items.

Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

o Factor 1 – Technical Proposal o Factor 2 – Past Performance Proposal o Factor 3 – Price Proposal o Factor 4 - Socioeconomic Proposal o Factor 5 - AbilityOne Proposal (formerly called Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act

(JWOD))

(End of Provision)

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items.