Updated _ SECTION M_Evaluation factors.pdf

SECTION M--EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 PROVISIONS

52.217-5 Evaluations of Options (JUL 1990)

M.2 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Each offeror’s technical and cost proposal will be evaluated according to the criteria specified in Section M, as outlined below. Evaluation of past performance will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3.

The Government will evaluate offers based on the best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. Technical Capability and Past Performance are approximately equal in importance.

The Government expects to make an award without discussions, however reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. In the event that discussion are conducted, the competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

M.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis that the following factors: Technical Approach, Relevant Past Performance and Key Personnel are listed in order of importance:

1. Technical Approach

2. Relevant Past Performance

3. Key Personnel

1. Technical Approach: A firm’s Technical Approach (HOW the work will be done) will be evaluated based on the following sub-factors which are considered approximately equal in importance in relation to each other:

a) Project Schedule- consists of a detailed timeline of how the project will be completed within allotted contract time;

b) Logistics Plan which addresses items such as timing, coordination of communication, and flow of work;

c) Quality Control Plan- includes but is not limited to a plan for performing testing, grades and tolerances, and quality control of subcontractor work;

d) Sub-Contractors- identification of subcontractor(s) that perform key elements of work and are expected to perform more than 20% of the work; and

e) Equipment- a description of equipment planned for use on this project.

2. Relevant Past Performance – Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror, as an organization, has satisfied its customers. Relevant past performance (containing the following information) is considered to be projects within the last three years that are similar in nature to this solicitation. The Government will inquire about the following elements which are considered approximately equal in importance in relation to each other for evaluation purposes.

a) Quality of the Construction - Demonstrated ability to adhere to plans and specifications or to make improvements to plans and specifications; did completed project meet expectations in relation to quality and cost?

b) Customer Satisfaction - Satisfaction of end users with Contractor’s completed project.

c) Business relations - Effective management; ability to manage projects involving subcontracts; effective working relationships including communications with the Contracting Officer, technical representatives, subcontractors; reasonable/cooperative behavior; flexibility; effective contractor recommended solutions; businesslike concern for Government's interests; promptness in completion of paperwork; adherence to Plans submitted (safety, etc.).

d) Timeliness – Compliance with performance schedules, project milestones; realistic, updated progress schedules, timeliness in submitting administrative paperwork (invoices/payrolls, modifications, bonds, schedules, plans, material certifications), and paying subcontractors on time.

Assessment of the Offeror’s relevant past performance will be one means of evaluating the credibility of the Offeror’s proposal. Each offeror will be evaluated on their performance under existing and prior contracts of similar nature. Evaluation information will be obtained from the references listed in the proposal and other customers known to the Government, and others who may have useful and relevant information. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size and complexity of the procurement under consideration.

Offerors with past performance data will be evaluated in the same manner as all other evaluation factors; however, those offerors with no past performance data will be treated as an unknown performance risk and neither be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably.

3. Key Personnel: The Government will assess the quality and extent of the qualifications of the offeror’s proposed personnel based on a detailed review of the content of resumes submitted as part of the offer (proposal). Personnel will be evaluated on their education/experience to the extent it adds value to accomplishing this project. Personnel shall include at minimum a Project Manager, Site Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager.

M.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA – PRICE PROPOSAL

Evaluation of Price Proposals: No rating will be applied to price. Price is significantly less important than the technical evaluation factors. As the difference between technical scoring decreases, price will increase in relative importance.

The Government may reject any or all proposals, make award to other than the lowest offeror and waive minor informalities or irregularities in offers received.

As mentioned in Section M.1, “The Government expects to make an award without discussions, however reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary”, therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms.

M.5 AWARD DETERMINATION

Award will be made to that offeror (1) whose proposal is technically acceptable and (2) whose technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government. While cost is secondary to technical, it will be a factor in the award decision. The critical factor in making any cost/technical trade-off is not the spread between the technical scores, but rather what is the significance of that difference. The significance of the spread in scores will be determined on the basis of what that difference might mean in terms of performance and what it would cost the Government to take advantage of it. Awards may not necessarily be made to that offeror submitting the lowest offer. Also, award may not necessarily be made for technical capabilities that would appear to exceed those needed for the successful performance of the work. The Government reserves the right to make cost/technical trade-offs that are in the best interest and to the advantage of the Government.

Proposals will be evaluated to determine those offerors which are within the competitive range, price and other factors considered. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms which the offeror can make to the Government. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to make award without conducting discussions. Discussions (oral or written) may be conducted as appropriate with all offerors considered to be within the competitive range. For the purpose of this solicitation, discussion shall not be considered to have been initiated where the Government requests additional information supplementing or clarifying a proposal without materially changing it. Discussion shall be considered to be open negotiation with an offeror for the purpose of modifying or materially changing the proposal as submitted.

Where discussions are held with one offeror within the competitive range, they will be held with all offerors within the competitive range.

Each proposal received will be carefully considered and all information submitted will be kept in strict confidence within legal constraints. This request for proposals does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the submission of proposals.

Proposals that fail to provide a complete response to the Evaluation Criteria may be rejected and not be considered further.