Attachment-0016-EvaluationFactorsADMTasks.docx

Competition Sensitive

Technical Rating Factors:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

All proposals received pursuant to this task will be evaluated in a fair and consistent manner. The Best Value source selection determination will be based on an integrated assessment of the Offeror’s proposal to meet the support for Project Manager Soldier Weapon’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) in an affordable and cost effective manner.

Relative Weighting Of Criteria

The selection of the best value proposal will be the result of an integrated assessment. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and will assess the results of the following Factors, listed below in descending order or importance:

1. Factor I - TECHNICAL

2. Factor II - PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE

3. Factor III - PRICE

For evaluation purposes, the Technical Factor and the Personnel Experience are equally important. When all evaluation factors other than Price are combined, they are significantly more important than Price. The Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best efforts to respond to the solicitation. Unexplained inconsistencies resulting from the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature of the scope of the work required may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Technical Evaluation Approach:

Factor I: The evaluation of TECHNICAL FACTOR for Administrative Assistant support to PM Soldier Weapons.

(1) Understanding the Requirements - The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in the requested services and meeting the requirements presented by the PWS; and the extent to which any uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

a. The proposal shall outline specific experience in addressing the PWS requirements and not merely restating the requirement without providing supporting detail.

(2) Feasibility of Approach - The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach to meeting the PWS requirements provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion within the required schedule.

Evaluators will rate the proposals in the TECHNICAL FACTOR, against the requirements, using the following definitions:

Personnel Experience

Factor II: The evaluation of the Offeror’s Personnel Experience proposal shall address the work efforts in PWS section 4.1:

(1) Demonstrates minimum five years’ experience in providing administrative assistant support for senior level DA personnel;

(2) Demonstrates knowledge and experience in DA specific systems (DTS, ATAAPS, GFEBS, SAP/AEP MeSpace, APACS) and Microsoft Windows and Office;

(3) Demonstrates knowledge and experience operating in the Army installation management system to resolve issues with organization facilities;

(4) Demonstrates knowledge and experience operating in the Army acquisition environment to execute daily mission;

(5) Demonstrates knowledge and experience to understand and implement directives, policies and directives from DA and PEO.

(6) Demonstrates the knowledge, capabilities, and an understanding of the requirements. Resume of proposed personnel shall be provided to further support Offeror’s proposal in regards to the level of the personnel’s technical knowledge and capabilities.

Evaluators will rate the proposals in the Personnel Experience factor, against the requirements, using the following definitions:

Price Evaluation Approach:

Factor III: The Price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404(b). Price will not be scored. Price reasonableness will be determined in accordance with FAR 15.404(b)(2)(i).

Evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed labor rate for Administrative Assistant Support Services by 1,920.

Price Inconsistencies: A proposal is presumed to represent an Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any performance and price should be explained in the Proposal. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and Scope of Work required and his financial ability to perform the contract, may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Other Considerations:

Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically low in price, will be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk in the contract requirements.

Offeror's are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with the contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must provide convincing documentary evidence in support of any conclusive statements relating to promised performance.