SPE4A520R0150 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 For Official Use Only

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999) (TAILORED)

M.1 The government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation for the entire FSG 53 population in A to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. A competitive Source Selection Trade-Off will be used, based on the following factors and Subfactors:

• Factor I: Cyber Security

• Factor II: Technical

• Subfactor One: Program Management

• Subfactor Two: Program Execution

• Subfactor Three: Quality System

• Subfactor Four: Small Business Commitment Plan

• Factor III: Past Performance

• Factor IV: Price

M.1.1 The Cyber Security factor will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis; any offer who fails Cyber Security will not be eligible for award and will not be considered in the tradeoff decision. In the trade-off decision the remaining non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance), when combined, will be significantly less important than price. and Past Performance Factors will be of equal importance.

Prospective offerors are forewarned that a proposal meeting solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher priced proposal is determined to be the best value to the government.

ADDENDA FOR FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

M.2. Evaluation of Proposals

M.2.1 Offerors are required to submit proposals as prescribed in Section L of the solicitation. A proposal determined to be so non-compliant with the solicitation requirements that it would require excessive/major revisions and would likely not be easily correctable through discussions, if conducted, may be rejected. No discussion will be held with rejected offerors, nor will any rejected offeror be given an opportunity to revise its offer to correct those deficiencies in order to become acceptable after the date and time established for receipt of initial offers.

M.2.2 The government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an offeror’s proposal. The failure of an offeror’s proposal to meet any given requirement of the RFP may result in the entire proposal being found to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.2.3 All proposals will be evaluated to determine that the offered price is fair and reasonable.

M.2.4 The government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore offerors are cautioned that their initial proposal should contain the best terms from a non-price and a cost/price position.

M.2.5 If the Contracing Officer determines discussions are necessary, those offerors retained in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to address weaknesses, deficiencies, uncertainties and risks in their proposal. An offeror’s response as a result of discussions, or lack thereof, will be included in the final evaluation.

M.3 General Basis for Award

M.3.1 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, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

M.4 Non-Price Evaluation Factors

M.4.1 Factor I: Cyber Security

The Cyber Security factor will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis.

The offeror’s response will be evaluated to assess agreement with the requirements cited below. Any offeror who fails to agree to the requirements will not be eligible for award and will not be considered in the tradeoff decision.

The primary goal of the proposal submission for the Cyber Security factor is for the offeror to agree to adhere to the Government’s requirements in accordance with Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive (DLAD) Part 4, Administrative Matters Subpart 4.73-Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. This factor will ensure that the Contractor acknowledges their ability to follow and comply with all National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) policies of the FSG 53 acquisition. Furthermore, this factor will confirm that the Contractor agrees that at the time the Department of Defense (DoD) imposes the new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) process, that they will comply with the policy and secure the required certification, regardless of the potential that the new policy may not require active DoD contract holders to comply. The Government reserves the right to review contract NIST compliancy, which may require additional documentation during contract performance.

M.4.2 Factor II: Technical

Each offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the four subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The subfactors are equally important. The technical proposal will be evaluated to ensure it addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail, including identifying risks and mitigations.

If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

M.4.2.1 Subfactor One: Program Management. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to assess:

1. the offeror’s corporate structure, identifying the responsibilities of the offeror and all critical subcontractors relating to the management and oversight of the contract,

2. the offeror’s key personnel (including Program Manager and subcontractor personnel) that are essential to the successful management and oversight of this effort,

3. the offeror’s information and data systems, connectivity and capabilities to meet all performance requirements; how its information technology (IT) will be used in performance of the contract; how it will process EDI orders from receipt to complete fulfillment to meet TDD standards and meet the packaging marking, and shipping requirements for the Core population; how it will process EDI orders from receipt to complete fulfillment to meet On-Time Delivery (OTD) requirements for the Extended and Alternative baskets; and how its IT systems can/will adapt based on fluctuating demands to maintain seamless customer support, and

4. the offeror’s identification of how the offeror is financially capable of supporting the requirements either at present or by detailing its efforts to secure finances accordingly.

M.4.2.2 Subfactor Two: Program Execution. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to assess:

1. The offeror’s Contractor Transition Plan in accordance with SOW, Section 2.3.

2. The offeror’s plan to execute the supply chain functions for the Core population as identified in the SOW, Section 10.1.

3. Extent to which offeror accepts or changes PLTs of record in Appendix B, extent to which offeror accepts TDD shipment requirements of the Core Basket, and the offeror’s approach for overseeing the program to ensure it meets the Government’s required delivery objectives as well as meeting the Customer Direct Availability (CDA) and OTD metrics required in the SOW. In the event a Contractor fails to change PLT data, DLA shall assume the PLT provided on the delivery schedule is acceptable.

4. The offeror’s approach for Customer Support Services to include responsiveness to customer (both DLA and Services) inquiries.

5. The offeror’s approach for development and optimization of its Supply Chain Management (SCM) system.

6. The offeror’s approach to identify potential supply chain risks to meet specific performance standards and provide an approach(es) to mitigate each risk identified.

M.4.2.3 Subfactor Three: Quality System. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to assess:

1. the degree to which the offeror’s quality system and assurance process ensures it procures and provides items from approved sources, provides items that meet the requirements of the drawings and specifications, and prevents counterfeit material from entering the supply chain. Ensure a copy of the offeror’s current quality standard is included with the proposal.

2. the offeror’s approach to ensure product conformance and ensure criteria standards for testing, inspection, and marking are met for commercially sourced items in compliance with the materiel technical requirements specified herein to include maintaining and obtaining CSI manufacture, testing and inspection data and documentation, when applicable,

3. the offeror’s commercial warranty provisions and return/exchange program for incorrect or defective component items,

4. the offeror’s obsolescence management program for managing the loss, or impending loss, of manufacturers or suppliers and its resources and approach for providing the government with information regarding any known obsolescence issues and additionally, assistance it will provide to the government in establishing obsolescence solutions, and

5. the offeror’s process to ensure Configuration Control is maintained in accordance with the solicitation requirements and its established processes in working with the ACO to process deviations and waivers, as appropriate.

M.4.2.4 Subfactor Four: Small Business Commitment Plan. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to assess:

1. the extent of commitment to small businesses (as a small business prime and/or first tier small business contractors) in the performance of the acquisition.

2. how small business commitment will be tracked at the order level.

3. the quality of the plan to achieve the 25% small business commitment, to include the mitigation of risk to avoid not achieving the 25%.

4. the offeror’s identified techniques to aggressively pursue small business commitment during contract performance, such as industry days, notices in commercial publications, and similar efforts.

5. the overall affordability of the offeror’s incremental incentive scale to achieve up to 60% small business participation.

M.4.2.5 Technical/Risk Combined Rating The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The four Subfactors used for the Combined Technical/ Risk ratings are equally important. Each Subfactor will receive a separate rating. The Subfactor ratings will then be rolled up to achieve a final technical/risk rating. The following adjectival ratings shall be utilized/assigned in the evaluation of the Technical proposals:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable, M.4.3 Factor III: Past Performance

M.4.3.1 The offeror’s present/past performance experience shall be evaluated to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the proposed contract requirements. If the offeror’s experience is not sufficient, the present/past performance experience of any significant partner, joint venture, critical subcontractor, etc., who will be performing the proposed contract and the subsequent performance under the similar contract shall be evaluated. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated recent (i.e.

currently ongoing or completed within the last three calendar years from the solicitation open date) and relevant record of performance in supplying services and products that are the same or similar in scope, complexity and magnitude (i.e. dollar value, volume) to the requirements of the solicitation.

M.4.3.2 Relevancy and Confidence Assessment The following relevancy ratings shall be used in the Past Performance evaluation:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

After ratings for relevancy have been assigned, a confidence assessment is determined which reflects, based on the quality of the offeror’s performance on the assessed present/past performance, an expectation of the offeror’s successful performance of the requirements herein. The following confidence assessments shall be used in the evaluation of the Past Performance factor.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.4.3.3 An offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when it has no record of relevant past performance or when information on the offeror’s past performance is not available; a “Neutral” rating/assessment is assigned under these circumstances. An evaluation of neutral/unknown confidence will not eliminate an offeror from the overall review and evaluation of its proposal for the requirement herein.

M.4.3.4 A record of favorable relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the government than a “Neutral” rating. Likewise, a recent relevant record of favorable performance may receive a higher rating than a less recent relevant record of favorable performance. The past performance of the offeror will be weighted more heavily than the past performance of any significant partner, joint venture, critical subcontractor, etc.

M.4.3.5 Adverse past performance for which an offeror did not previously have an opportunity to comment will be handled through communications or discussions, in accordance with FAR 15.306(b) or (d).

M.5 Factor IV: Price

M.5.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will utilize a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the price analysis of offerors proposals. Specifically, for the Core and Extended market baskets of items, discrete prices will be provided by vendors for Year 1. TEP will be calculated for the items identified in this requirement (Appendix A). The TEP will be calculated based on the sum of the offerors proposed prices for core and extended baskets multiplied by the projected quantity for each year. For the Alternative basket items, price will be evaluated based on the offeror’s acceptance of and/or the percentage increase or decrease based on the DLA historical pricing. The TEP will also calculate optional offeror rebates.

M.5.2 Proposed pricing shall be evaluated for price reasonableness. Price reasonableness is a judgment of the proposed price as compared to competitive prices received, current market conditions, appropriate industry indices and other relevant measures. Competitiveness is not determined by simply comparing the prices proposed by other offered prices but involves making tradeoff comparisons between cost and technical approaches. Prior price history will be reviewed when determining prices fair and reasonable.

If an offered price cannot be determined reasonable using measures referenced above, the Government may ask for data other than cost or pricing data described at FAR 15.4 to substantiate the offered pricing.

M.5.3 Prices shall be evaluated for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more NSNs is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The government shall analyze offers to determine whether unbalanced separately priced line items exist.

M.5.4 The Government will evaluate the completeness of proposals to ensure EOQs are included, especially in the case of items with an estimated annual demand (EAD) of 1. For instance, if the majority of items with EAD of 1 do not contain an EOQ in the proposal, the Government may determine this a weakness in the proposal.