Attachment_6_-Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

SP3300-14-R-0011

Attachment 6

Evaluation Factors for Award

FAR 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

(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 Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation using the lowest price technically acceptable source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability.

Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, inclusive of options, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and which has submitted a proposal conforming to the solicitation requirements. The requirements include all stated terms, conditions, completion of representations and certifications, and all other requirements of this solicitation. The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, the initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror using the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process. Proposals shall be evaluated for acceptability or unacceptability only and shall not be rated. Award will be based on the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the non-price factors. Any offeror who has submitted a technically acceptable proposal and who has been found to have an acceptable past performance will then have the proposal evaluated for lowest price.

The following non-price factors shall be used to determine acceptability of a proposal:

Factor 1: Management Capability Subfactor (a): Management Plan Subfactor (b): Staffing Plan

Factor 2: Technical Capability Subfactor (a): Technical Approach Subfactor (b): Quality Control Plan Subfactor (c): Phase-In Plan

Factor 3: Past Performance Factors 1 through 3 shall be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. 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), Past Performance Evaluation). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

DRAFT

A proposal is considered acceptable for award if it (i) addresses itself to all the essential requirements of the RFP, (ii) shows the offeror understands all essential requirements of the RFP, and has demonstrated a full capability to perform the prospective requirements, (iii) offers a feasible technical approach, and (iv) although some discussion of the proposal may be desirable, the proposal is complete to the extent that an award could be made on its present terms.

A proposal will be considered unacceptable for award if award cannot be made on the present terms of the proposal, and corrective action would require essentially rewriting the proposal or require the submission of an approach which would be new or almost entirely different from that previously proposed. A major item and/or gross omission which precludes meeting solicitation objectives that cannot be corrected prior to or during discussions without major revision or complete resubmission of the proposal will cause a proposal to be found technically unacceptable.

An “Unacceptable” determination on the non-price factors Factors 1 or 2 will render the proposal ineligible for award, or if discussions are held, or if discussions are held, a proposal found to be “unacceptable for award” (as defined above) may be excluded from the competitive range. A determination of “Unacceptable” on any subfactor will result in a determination of “Unacceptable” at the factor level. An initial determination of "Unacceptable" in the Past Performance Factor (Factor 3) will not automatically eliminate an offeror from award eligibility or the competitive range, but may be considered in making the competitive range determination if communications have been conducted pursuant to FAR 15.306(b)(1)(i), Communications with Offerors before the Establishment of the Competitive Range. Communications shall be held with offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor keeping them from being placed within the competitive range if the communications are necessary to allow them to address adverse past performance information to which the offeror(s) had not had a prior opportunity to respond.

It is the intention of the Government to award without discussions. However, if it is determined that discussions are required, then the determination of the competitive range will include all proposals which are considered to be technically acceptable and may include those that are considered to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award, unless the competitive range is further limited in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2).

Those offerors whose proposals do not fall into the competitive range will be notified as required by FAR 15.503(a)(1). Offerors will be notified in writing with a concise explanation of their proposal deficiencies without jeopardizing the competitive range.

Those offerors whose proposals are determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the competitive range will be contacted by the Contract Specialist for discussions. Discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). If verbal discussions are held they will be followed by a written reiteration of the discussion. Written discussions may also be held, whereby the Government will provide a written list of discussion questions to each offeror, as appropriate. In the case of both verbal and written discussions, the offeror will provide a written response to the discussion question and revision to the proposal as required. This response and revision (if required) will be marked accordingly to distinguish it as a supplement to their original proposal. More than one round of discussions may be held. At the conclusion of final discussions, the Government will request each offeror in the competitive range to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR).

The FPR will be evaluated as to its revised technical, past performance, and/or pricing approach in response to the issues identified during discussions. The Government then intends, in accordance with the evaluation factors for award set forth below, to award a contract to the offeror who has submitted the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. A proposal will be determined ineligible for award if Factor 1, Factor 2, or Factor 3 is/are evaluated as “Unacceptable”.

Factor 1: Management Capability

The Management Capability Factor has two (2) subfactors: Management Plan and Staffing Plan.

Both subfactors will be evaluated. The entire factor will be considered unacceptable if any of the subfactors are determined unacceptable. Based on this evaluation, the Factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine if the proposal demonstrates an acceptable management and staffing approach that reflects a clear understanding of the work required and a reasonable, well-thought-out approach that is likely to yield the required results. This includes:

effective use of personnel to perform the services; the effectiveness of the overall management methodology to manage the requirements of the PWS; the ability to resolve priority conflicts for the resources to ensure that the requirements of the PWS are met; and the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the staffing requirements of the PWS.

Factor 2: Technical Capability

The Technical Capability Factor has three (3) subfactors: Technical Approach, Quality Control Plan, and Phase-In Plan. All subfactors will be evaluated. The entire factor will be considered unacceptable if any of the subfactors are determined unacceptable. Based on this evaluation, the Factor will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror demonstrates an acceptable and complete understanding of the PWS requirements and their ability to perform all performance tasks and objectives. The Offeror’s approach to Quality Control will be evaluated to determine if the approach demonstrates acceptable, effective, and efficient assurance that quality and timeliness will be achieved. The Offeror’s Phase-In Plan will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s proposal seamlessly phases in all functional activities within the timeframe allotted.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government may utilize the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), data submitted by the offeror in Volume III, and any other information available in its possession to determine the quality and relevance of the offeror’s past performance.

Each proposal will be evaluated to the extent to which the offeror has demonstrated an ability and willingness to perform: 1) A quality product or service (i.e. the conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship); 2) Timeliness of the contract with regard to completion of contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules and administrative requirements (e.g., effort that contributes to or affects the schedule variance); 3) Acceptable cost control with regard to the offeror’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost; 4) Good business relationships with regard to the timeliness, completeness and quality of problem identification and resolution, offeror’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts, and whether the contractor met their small/small disadvantaged and women owned business participation goals; and 5) Management of key personnel with regard to demonstration of a commitment to the management of key personnel with regard to the offeror’s performance in selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing, when necessary, key personnel.

The Government will only consider relevant past performance data of the offeror and its major subcontractors. A major subcontractor is defined as those providing twenty percent (20%) of total dollar threshold AND/OR twenty-five percent (25%) of total man-hour effort.

Subcontractors not meeting the definition of a “major subcontractor” will not be evaluated. To be considered relevant, the offeror must demonstrate past execution of similar contracts in terms of complexity, technology, magnitude of effort, schedule, and scope. Additionally, the performance must have occurred during the last five (5) years. Offerors shall be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. 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), Past Performance Evaluation). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.” Should the Government discover adverse past performance information to which the offeror(s) had not had a prior opportunity to respond, the PCO will conduct communications if deemed appropriate.

Price Proposal

If a proposal has been determined acceptable under each of the non-price factors listed above, the Government will then evaluate the proposal for the lowest price. The proposed total price—the sum of the total estimated amount for all CLINS—between offers that are determined to be technically acceptable will be the determining factor in the selection of a proposal for award.

The Government will perform price analysis on all CLINs as the resultant contract will be Firm- Fixed-Priced/Fixed-Price. This assessment will determine the reasonableness of the price proposed. The other than certified cost and pricing data shall be utilized to evaluate that offerors have proposed: an appropriate labor mix and number of hours in accordance with the technical approach; non-exempt labor rates in accordance with the Service Contract Act and that the labor identified in the technical proposals is captured in the price proposals. If based on price realism, the price is determined unreasonably low, the Government reserves the right to eliminate the offeror from the competitive range.

Price analysis shall not be conducted on offerors determined to be unacceptable for award or for inclusion in the competitive range, as it shall be assumed that the price proposed is not reasonable based on an unacceptable technical approach.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the

Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)