Updated Section M (SPPRA224R0015).pdf

M. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. This acquisition is a women-owned small business set-aside, as provided in FAR 52.219-30 (Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns Eligible Under the Women-Owned Small Business Program). Additionally, this acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 as supplemented in PGI 215.300-90 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The rating methodology is described in the paragraphs below. Tradeoffs will be made between technical, past performance, and price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that a superior technical approach and past performance rating of the higher priced offeror outweighs the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) difference.

To arrive at a best value decision, the Contracting Officer will utilize the technical team's evaluation of the factors described in the solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described below in Paragraph C.

B. The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards. If multiple awards are made, future delivery order awards will be based on a best value tradeoff between price, contract performance, and schedule.

C. For the purposes of award, offers will be evaluated on the following factors listed below:

Evaluation Factors

1. Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Price

The Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor are equal in weight. When combined, the Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor are more important than price.

The Technical Factor (Factor 1) shall be evaluated first. Only offerors who receive a rating of “Acceptable” or better will move to the Past Performance evaluation factor (Factor 2). A rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for Past Performance in order to be considered for award. The proposed prices in Factor 3 will be evaluated as follows: FFP elements will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance.

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

A. Volume I, Completed RFP

The Government will review the RFP for completeness, to include all required fill-in clauses, Section B/CLIN pricing, and signed page 1 of the RFP. The Government will review the cover letter, any exceptions, and will verify the offeror’s WOSB status for NAICS code 336419 size standard of 1,050 (in number of employees) in SAM.Gov. Those offeror’s proposals who are not considered a WOSB in the size standard in SAM.Gov will not be evaluated or considered for award.

B. Volume II, Technical Factor (Factor 1)

1. General: Each offeror's technical proposal shall be evaluated based on their approach to overall project management, quality, and schedule. The evaluators will determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation team’s assessment of the offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirement. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine the rating of the technical factor, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to the Technical Approach based on significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies identified by the technical team. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an "Acceptable" or above rating for this factor. Each offeror's technical/management/risk proposal shall be evaluated based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

The Government will not evaluate any information on pages that exceed the page count listed in Section L.

Technical Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

NOTE: Offerors who receive less than an Acceptable rating shall not be considered for contract award.

C. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance and overall performance by reviewing a Present/Past Performance Summary (PPS) sheet for two (2) recent and relevant contracts submitted by the offeror. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will review the PPS contracts for recency and relevancy. The offeror shall send Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to the primary customers identified in the PPS contract. The PPQs shall be submitted directly back to DLA at DLAHSVPMContracts@dla.mil. The Government shall also review the two (2) contracts Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS). If no PPQs are submitted to DLA by the time and date listed in Section B, the Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the offeror's Present/Past Performance Volume (PPS). The Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s).

2. 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 two (2) submitted contracts. Both of the relevancy determinations will be considered in the past performance evaluation rating. 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 proposal:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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

Contract valued ≥ $10M Assembling and delivering kits with multiple parts and complex technical specifications that support DoD or other US Government weapon systems Manufacturing/producing cables and wiring harnesses

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

Contract valued from ≥ $5M - < $10M Assembly and delivery of kits, cables, and/or wiring harnesses that support

DoD or other US Government weapon systems Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Contract valued from ≥ $2M - < $5M.

Assembly and delivery of kits, cables, and/or wiring harnesses that support

DoD or other US Government weapon systems Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Contract valued at < $2M No experience in assembling and delivering kits, cables, and/or wiring harnesses that support DoD or other US Government weapon systems mailto:DLAHSVPMContracts@dla.mil

3. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The Evaluation Team will review all past performance information (PPS, PPQ, and CPARS) and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below:

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.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

D. Price Proposal Factor

1. Price Factor. The offeror's proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs A and B below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph C.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR

15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items (Basic Contract Ordering Periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror's response to the pricing structure. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): A Total Evaluated Price will be calculated as outlined below. The total sell price of each item will include the offeror's cost of materials, shipping, management costs, Statement of Work CDRLs, and any costs associated with UID as appropriate. No additional cost for items will be paid by the Government during contract performance. Unit prices supplied in the RFP Pricing Spreadsheet will be used to calculate the TEP as illustrated in the table below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. All unit prices should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

The TEP, along with, the technical and past performance ratings will be considered in determining the proposals offering the best value to the Government. This competition will be a best value tradeoff analysis.

EXAMPLE:

Item Description Best

Estimated Quantity

(BEQ)

Unit Price BEQ Multiplied by Unit Price

Production Year 1 213 $200 $42,600 Production Year 2 116 $250 $29,000 Production Year 3 106 $275 $29,150

CSDR YR 1 1 $50 $50

CSDR YR 2 1 $40 $40

CSDR YR 3 1 $30 $30

Total Evaluated Price (Sum of BEQ Multiplied by Unit Price) $100,870