Attachment_0006_basis_of_award-9-30-17-draft.docx

Attachment 0006 – Basis of Award FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Solicitation No. W15QKN-18-R-1000 Date: 30 September 2017 The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this solicitation. The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving the appropriate consideration to the four evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, Price/Cost, and Small Business Participation. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making this assessment, the SSA will give due consideration to all of the Factors and their relative order of importance.

For evaluation purposes, the Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price/Cost. Price/Cost is more important than the Small Business Participation Factor. When combined, all non-cost factors are significantly more important than Price/Cost.

Offerors are cautioned that award may not be made to the lowest priced Offeror. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any non-price Factor are ineligible for award.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the SSA will assess the results of the following Factors, listed below in descending order of importance:

· Factor 1- Technical

· Factor 2 – Past Performance

· Factor 3 – Price/Cost

· Factor 4 – Small Business Participation

Factor 1 - Technical: The Technical factor will consist of two scenarios (these two scenarios are not separate subfactors and will not receive an adjectival rating). Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each scenario as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2 – Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated for recency, relevancy and quality. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a confidence rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 3 – Price/Cost: Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the FFP tasks and Government CR amounts will be provided. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will arrive at a total evaluated price and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 4 - Small Business Participation: The extent of small business participation will be evaluated for this acquisition. A detailed explanation of the criteria for evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach” paragraph of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All responsive proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST) which is comprised of Government personnel.

FACTOR 1 – Technical: The Technical Factor will be evaluated against the following criteria:

a. Understanding of the requirements. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements in the PWS to be satisfied, issues to be resolved, and the required tasks, services, and skill sets required to achieve program objectives. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements is adequately reflected in their approach to ensure implementation and execution of the program.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach to meeting the requirements in a timely manner provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful execution and minimize the risk of performance problems. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule. The evaluation will also consider the adequacy of the proposed hours and labor mix with regards to the Technical scenarios.

c. Marginal levels of detail could indicate a lack of understanding concerning requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

d. Unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must contain supporting rationale for any statements relating to proposed performance. Each proposal will be rated strictly in accordance with its written content.

e. No assumptions will be made by evaluators regarding areas that are not addressed in the Offeror’s written proposal or written responses to Government Evaluation Notices (ENs).

f. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

g. The Technical Factor Ratings excerpted below focus on the significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical elements requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to Achieving the Technical Factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The following definitions will be used in the evaluation process:

a. Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

b. Significant Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. Strength - An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

e. Significant Strength - An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

FACTOR – 2 Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the Offeror and its major subcontractors on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on the resultant contract. A single confidence rating will be established.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan using the forms and questionnaires set forth in the solicitation.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s and proposed major subcontractors’ record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including compliance of products and services, effectiveness of project management, schedule, and customer satisfaction. Major subcontractors are defined as the top two subcontractors which will be performing the highest percentage of the total proposed price in each of the following three services: health care, dental, and laboratory. For parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, explain how the resources of these entities will perform on this effort. Offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files/databases or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor, and their current and past performance under Federal contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 621112. The Government is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

c. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality.

1. Recency: The first step is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is defined as occurring within the following time standards: 1) occurring within the past three years from date of solicitation issuance, or 2) awarded earlier than three years ago, but for which performance occurred within the past three years.

1. Relevance: The second step of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

1. Quality Assessment: The third step is to assess the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and electronic Subcontracting Reporting System and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be given; however, the past performance confidence assessment rating will be based on recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

d. Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as PPIRS and FAPIIS.

FACTOR - 3 Price/Cost Factor: The Price/Cost Factor will be evaluated, but will not receive an adjectival rating.

A total evaluated price will be calculated for each Offeror and used in a tradeoff analysis in order to determine the best value. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate.

The RFP will contain provision 52.219-4 -- Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns. When appropriate, the evaluation preference will be applied to the total evaluated price as stipulated in the provision.

The total evaluated price will be calculated by summing the evaluated prices for FFP Procedures, Incoming Transition, Outgoing Transition, Contractor Manpower Reporting (if not-separately-priced), and CR (no fee) for Travel, Shipping, and ODCs for each period of performance. The total evaluated price will be calculated as follows:

Procedures (FFP): The proposed fully loaded FFP value for each procedure will be multiplied by the Government-provided quantities to compute an extended price for each procedure in each period of performance as depicted in the Price Matrix Attachment. All extended prices will be summed to derive a total for each period of performance. The total for each period of performance will be summed to derive the evaluated price for the FFP fully loaded procedure value.

Incoming Transition (FFP): The proposed price in the Price Matrix for Transition-In will be included in the total evaluated price.

Outgoing Transition (FFP): The proposed price in the Price Matrix for Transition-Out will be used in the total evaluated price.

Contractor Manpower Reporting (FFP): If the Offeror chooses to separately price Contractor Manpower Reporting as opposed to it being Not Separately Priced (NSP), the proposed price per period of performance in the Price Matrix will be used in the total evaluated price.

Shipping, Travel, and ODCs (CR (no fee)): The evaluated cost for Shipping, Travel, and ODCs will be the Government-provided shipping, travel, and ODC costs and the applicable indirect costs determined from cost realism analysis of the proposed indirect rates in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).

Shipping: The evaluated Shipping cost will be calculated by adding the Government-provided Shipping cost of $2,375,779.00 for the base period, $7,552,098.00 for option period 1, $7,922,151.00 for option period 2, $8,310,336.00 for option period 3, and $8,717,543.00 for option period 4 and the applicable indirect costs determined from cost realism analysis of the proposed rates in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).

Travel: The evaluated Travel cost will be calculated by adding the Government-provided Travel cost of $4,239,262.00 for the base period, $13,167,406.00 for option period 1, $13,496,591.00 for option period 2, $13,834,006.00 for option period 3, and $14,179,856.00 for option period 4 and the applicable indirect costs determined from cost realism analysis of the proposed rates in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).

ODCs: The evaluated ODC cost will be calculated by adding the Government-provided ODC cost of $1,472,612.00 for the base period, $1,509,427.00 for option period 1, $1,532,491.00 for option period 2, $1,556,215.00 for option period 3, and $1,579,244.00for option period 4 and the applicable indirect costs determined from cost realism analysis of the proposed rates and indirect rates evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).

Price Inconsistencies: A proposal is presumed to represent an Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of work required and the Offeror’s financial ability to perform the contract and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Unbalanced Pricing. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing utilizing cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

FACTOR – 4 Small Business Participation: All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The Government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments based on signed binding agreements/contracts will be considered more favorably);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent of past performance in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors and for all large business Offerors, FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Offeror shall provide information substantiating the Offeror’s track record of utilizing small businesses on past contracts and identify the small business category applicable; and

e. The extent of participation of small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror attempts to meet or exceed the goals. Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {25%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {10%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {7%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {1%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {3%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {2%} of the total contract value. (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {7%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

of the small business objectives.

the small business objectives.

small business objectives.

understanding of the small business objectives.