SP470326R0001 ODS HFC RFP Evaluation Factors.docx

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

Defense Logistics Agency Support for ODS Reserve Program Office

RFP SP4703-12-R-0003

Request for Proposal SP4703-26-R-0001 Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) And Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Support Services Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Richmond and Forward Sites

Evaluation factors and subfactors are critical, solicitation-linked characteristics that:

The solicitation must clearly detail these factors and subfactors, their relative importance, and the importance of non-price factors compared to price, to inform potential offerors of the evaluation criteria. Evaluation factors and subfactors shall drive the solicitation's instructions for proposal content. Price and the quality of proposed products/services must be evaluated in all source selections.

Relative Importance of Factors:

Non-price factors (Technical/Risk and Past Performance) are significantly more important than price. Within non-price factors, Technical/Risk is more important than Past Performance. The Technical/Risk sub-factors are ranked in descending order of importance as follows: Management Approach and Capabilities, Technical Approach, and Personnel Qualifications.

Basis for Award and Summary Evaluation of Non-Price Factors and Sub-Factors.

1) Proposals will first be evaluated on the basis of the Non-Price Evaluation Factors (Technical / Risk and Past Performance ) and then Price. The evaluation process is further defined in Paragraph 6.

2) The Technical/Risk sub-factors are Management Approach and Capabilities; Technical Approach; and Personnel Qualifications. These sub-factors address the contractor’s capability and provide evidence that they can perform the requirements described in the PWS.

3) Past Performance information will be provided by the contractors to show their relevancy of successfully accomplishing PWS tasks and to determine the quality of their relevant past performance in order to assign a performance confidence assessment rating. Assessment for this area will be subjective based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Evaluation will investigate information furnished by the contractor to ensure they have consistently demonstrated a commitment to administration, customer satisfaction, timely delivery, and quality goods and services in prior contracts of similar scope and complexity. This is a matter of judgment and will be a subjective assessment based on investigative findings.

4) Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness.

5) Award will be made to the contractor whose proposal offers the best value to the government based on the requirement and the established evaluation factors.

A. Factors and Subfactors for Acquisition

Factor 1: Technical/Risk Evaluation Sub-Factor A: Management Approach and Capabilities Sub-Factor B: Technical Approach Sub-Factor C: Personnel Qualification

Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation / Performance Confidence Assessment Aspect One: Relevancy of Prior Contracts Aspect Two: Quality of Historical Projects

Factor 3: Price Evaluation

B. Tables and Specific Instructions

Factor 1: Technical/Risk Evaluation. Table 1, Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The three sub-factors affecting a contractor’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements are Management Approach and Capabilities (sub-factor A), Technical Approach (sub-factor B), and Personnel Qualifications (sub-factor C). The Evaluation Team must evaluate the contractor’s proposal against the minimum performance or capability requirements established by the solicitation assessing the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks and assigned a Combined Technical/Risk rating pursuant to Table 2 included herein.

a. Sub-factor A: Management Approach and Capabilities. In the evaluation of this sub-factor, the understanding of the work, as evidenced by proposed plan for overall implementation and execution of project, will be assessed. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

(i) Contractor’s understanding of the work as evidenced by proposed plan for overall implementation and execution of project.

(ii) Current corporate capability to perform contract, including relevant corporate experience.

(iii) Evidence of a process for ensuring quality and timeliness of deliverables.

(iv) Evidence of reach-back capability, including subcontractors, consultants, and business partners.

(v) Evidence of turn-over rate and ability to rapidly hire and train personnel in a dynamic environment with changing workloads.

b. Sub-factor B: Technical Approach. In the evaluation of this sub-factor, the approach to research, analyze, and develop deliverables and performance of each specific tasking will be assessed. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure Contractor’s technical approach demonstrates an understanding of the PWS requirements by addressing each specific task. Contractors are to include a discussion of methods and techniques for completing each discrete task and addressing potential problem areas to include solutions, new processes, or, if applicable, new technologies.

c. Sub-factor C: Personnel Qualifications. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure:

(i) Contractor proposes personnel who demonstrate the overall years of required knowledge, experience, and education that is directly related to the requirement stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Contractor must meet required IT access level and security clearance as stated in the PWS for all Key Personnel. All proposed personnel must identify security clearance status within resumes.

(ii) Quality and depth of education and experience on other projects that may not be similar enough to include in response to paragraph above but may be relevant.

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation / Performance Confidence Assessment. The past performance evaluation results in a performance confidence assessment rating of the contractor’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements (see Paragraph C. Table 4), derived at by considering each contractor’s demonstrated relevant record of performance (see Paragraph a. Table 3) and how well the contractor performed on the contracts (see Paragraph b. Table 4).

The Past Performance assessment is based on two aspects: Relevancy and Quality. In rating past performance and deriving a performance confidence assessment rating, the following will be considered:

a. Aspect One: Relevancy of Prior Contracts. This source of Past Performance information will be provided in the contractor’s written proposal. The first aspect is to evaluate the contractor’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the contractor is to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of a contractor’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the contractor will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. A Relevancy rating will be assigned per the four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 3. The more relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

b. Aspect Two: Quality of Historical Projects: The second aspect is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the contractor performed those past contracts and includes history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction; history of staying on schedule and within budget; and history of conformance to Subcontracting Plans. Past Performance information may be obtained from Past Performance Questionnaires, SPRS, CPARs, or other sources available to the government. The Quality rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable, or Neutral will be assigned for the levels as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Past Performance Quality Ratings

C. Performance Confidence Assessment: Past performance information will be reviewed and assessed to determine its relevancy and quality to assign a performance confidence assessment rating. Each contractor shall be assigned one rating from Table 5.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments

Factor 3: Price Evaluation. All pricing must be established within the commercial pricing. The contractor’s proposed labor categories and labor rates, along with requested applicable proposed discounts, will be evaluated. The submission of information other than cost or pricing data (SF 1448) to support a determination of price reasonableness with initial offers will not be requested.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page 1

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 Page 2