Attach 3_Section M_SPE30220R0001.pdf

Section M SPE302-20-R-0001

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award:

A. Source Selection Methodology: The Government intends to award one contract to one vendor 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 and have acceptable past performance, 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, has acceptable past performance, 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 II below.

Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

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

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. File I, Completed RFP

1. General: Each offeror’s completed RFP shall be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a complete proposal package.

2. Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s ability for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s completed proposal package shall be evaluated to determine whether the offeror is responsive or non-responsive (offeror did not provide a complete proposal package).

C. File II, PACA license and GHP/GAP Certificate

1. General: Each offeror shall submit a current and valid PACA License and current and valid GHP/GAP Certificate. The USDA GAP/GHP certificate and audit report must demonstrate a passing score, and specifically passing with respect to the following parts: General, Wholesale Distribution (6) and Preventive Food Defense (7).

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

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Offeror possesses valid PACA, possesses valid GHP/GAP

Unacceptable Offeror does not possess valid PACA, and/or does not possess valid GHP/GAP

D. File III, Past Performance Information

1. General: The past performance questionnaire will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

(a) Other Sources of Information: Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(c) Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

• RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

• NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Past Performance Evaluation 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.

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 is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. 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.”

E. File IV, Cost/Price Proposal

1. Evaluation of Pricing:

(a) Properly completed Attachment 1 spreadsheet (Schedule of Items) submitted by offerors will be used to evaluate and calculate the lowest price. The government will perform an aggregate price analysis on all items found in the schedule of items. The estimated quantities in the schedule of items shall be multiplied by the case.

(b) The unit prices of all items found in the Schedule of Items will be comparatively assessed to identify any unusually high or low priced items. This assessment includes, but is not limited to, comparison amongst offerors’ prices as well as comparison against USDA market report prices and internal Government databases that are applicable.

(c) As part of the evaluation process and requirement for proposal submission, the Government may require the offeror to substantiate any of its proposed Delivered Prices with an invoice / quote from the manufacturer, grower, private label holder, or redistributor (collectively referred to as “Supplier”) along with the corresponding freight invoice. The line item number must be clearly marked on each invoice (product and freight) to identify the invoice’s corresponding item. The preferred documentation is the manufacturer, grower, or private label holder invoice. If a particular line item was not stocked during that time period, a written quote from a manufacturer, grower or private label holder may be accepted. If an offeror does not have an invoice, the offeror needs to explain why, e.g. not in season, do not carry, etc. However, please note that anything other than an invoice, such as quotes, are the exception to the rule and may not be satisfactory to the Contracting Officer in substantiating an offeror’s Delivered Price. If unsatisfactory to the Contracting Officer, said price will be unacceptable and treated as though the offeror didn’t submit a price for that item. This situation may result in the offeror’s proposal being deemed technically unacceptable and removed from further consideration for award. As stated, the Government has a strong preference for invoices over market quotes or other documentation. All invoices, quotes, or other documentation must be from sources that the offeror currently uses or plans to use to support the resultant contract. All invoices (and other documentation as permitted) must contain realistic quantities for which the price paid was based upon. For example, an invoice for a quantity of 1 will not be accepted when the Government routinely purchases quantities well in excess of that quantity. Conversely, an invoice (and other documentation as permitted) based upon an unrealistically large quantity will not be accepted. Quotes shall not be used for the purpose of submitting a price lower than an existing invoice price within the offeror’s possession for the particular time period required by the Solicitation. This type of gamesmanship (i.e. lowballing or buying in) threatens the integrity of the procurement process and runs afoul of the clear intention of this Solicitation. As such, it will not be tolerated. By submitting a quote, the offeror is certifying that it did not purchase, nor have in stock, the item for the time period being evaluated. Information that is later obtained by the Contracting Officer that casts doubt on the veracity of this certification will be handled as appropriate per the terms of this Solicitation, applicable regulations, laws, or otherwise. The Contracting Officer has the sole authority and ultimate discretion in addressing the above-identified situations and scenarios and ultimately deciding on what information is acceptable and substantiates an offeror’s proposed Delivered Prices.

(d) All offerors are on notice that the Contracting Officer expects each’s proposal to accurately reflect the way in which that offeror intends to perform the contract if it is selected as the awardee. It is unacceptable to propose favorable terms that are inaccurate, false, or unrealistic for the purpose of misleading the Contracting Officer and tainting the evaluation process so that the offending offeror receives an award. Such behavior, when discovered, will result in immediate adverse action against the offeror or contractor as permitted by the terms of this Solicitation, applicable regulations, laws, or otherwise.

(e) Delivered and distribution prices will be evaluated with the ultimate award decision based on the lowest evaluated aggregate price (sum of base period, Tier 1 and Tier 2). The total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the values located in cell L156 of Attachment 1 spreadsheet worksheet Base to cell L156 of worksheet Tier 1 to cell L156 of worksheet Tier 2: Base worksheet cell L156 + Tier 1 worksheet cell L156 + Tier 2 worksheet cell L56 = Total Evaluated Price

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD