Attachment_0004_Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION – SEE FAR 3.104

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal.

Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability using the non-price Factors and Subfactors (including past performance), but will not be ranked. In order for an Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price Factor and Subfactor. A proposal receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” in any non-price Factor or Subfactor will not be eligible for award.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s capability of the Government’s requirements on the basis of the Offeror’s proposed Technical and Past Performance. Mere statements of compliance or recitation of the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements (i.e. “parroting” of the RFP requirements) are not acceptable. The Government will assess capability on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Trade-offs are not permitted.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

M.2. EVALUATION APPROACH

A. VOLUME I: TECHNICAL

The purpose of the Technical Factor is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Risk will be assessed as an inherent part of the Technical Factor. The Technical factor has 15 subfactors as follows:

1. Criteria: One (1) Project Manager (PM) with a Bachelor’s Degree in a business or Information Technology (IT) discipline and a minimum of 10 years of project management experience.

Standard of Proof: Resume showing degree and years of experience as specified.

2. Criteria: One (1) Integration/Network Manager with a Bachelor’s Degree in a Computer Management or IT discipline or a minimum of 5 years of IT experience.

Standard of Proof: Resume showing degree and/or years of experience as specified.

3. Criteria: One (1) Operations Manager, Senior with at least 7 years of experience in logistics management, warehousing management, distribution, and an automated Warehouse Management System (WMS) as well as possessing a current Forklift Operator Certification required by the State of Virginia.

Standard of Proof: Resume showing years of experience as specified accompanied by a copy of the Forklift Operator Certification as specified.

4. Criteria: One (1) Warehouse Specialist, Senior possessing a current Forklift Operator Certification required by the State of Virginia and a minimum of 5 years of experience in warehouse management, warehousing, and distribution.

Standard of Proof: Resume showing the required years of experience accompanied by a copy of the Forklift Operator Certification as specified.

5. Criteria: Two (2) Warehouse Specialists, General; One (1) Warehouse Specialist, Receiving; One (1) Freight Specialist, Journeyman; and One (1) Warehouse Specialist, Shipping all possessing a current Forklift Operator Certification required by the State of Virginia and a minimum of 3 years of experience in warehousing and distribution.

Standard of Proof: Resumes showing the required years of experience accompanied by copies of the Forklift Operator Certifications as specified.

6. Criteria: Two (2) Hardware-Software Integration Specialists with a minimum of 3 years’ experience in System Imaging, Database Administration, WMS, and Statistical Process Controls.

Standard of Proof: Resumes demonstrating experience as specified in System Imaging, Database Administration, WMS, and Statistical Process Controls.

7. Criteria: One (1) Property Accountability Property Book Unit Supply Enhanced (PBUSE) Specialist with an Associate’s Degree or military experience, a minimum of 5 years’ experience in Army property accountability policies and procedures and at least 3 years using the PBUSE system.

Standard of Proof: Resume showing an Associate’s Degree or military experience, a minimum of 5 years’ experience in Army property accountability policies and procedures and at least 3 years using the PBUSE system.

8. Criteria: Warehouse Operations – Receipt/Storage. Contractor will have experience inspecting, photographing damages, inventorying, and storing incoming material (PWS 3.2.1.2).

Standard of Proof: Proposal demonstrates experience in inspecting, photographing damages, inventorying, and storing incoming material.

9. Criteria: Warehouse Operations – Packaging/Shipping. Contractor will have experience allocating, picking, packing, and processing shipments of material (PWS 3.2.2.2).

Standard of Proof: Proposal demonstrates experience allocating, picking, packing, and processing shipments of material.

10. Criteria: Warehouse Operations – Inventory. Contractor will have experience conducting monthly cyclical and annual inventories (PWS 3.2.3.1).

Standard of Proof: Proposal demonstrates experience in conducting monthly cyclical and annual inventories.

11. Criteria: Kitting. The Contractor will have experience building kits, including assembling, labeling, and verifying kits In Accordance With (IAW) a Bill of Material (BOM) and update automated WMS (PWS 3.2.4.2).

Standard of Proof: Proposal demonstrates experience in building kits, including assembling, labeling, and verifying kits.

12. Criteria: Integration Services. The Contractor will have experience preparing and loading computer images on equipment using imaging software and load disks

(PWS 3.2.6.3).

Standard of Proof: Proposal demonstrates experience preparing and loading computer images on equipment using imaging software and load disks.

13. Criteria: Integration Services. The Contractor will have experience performing First Article Tests (FATs) for imaged equipment and reporting the results of those FATs (PWS 3.2.6.4).

Standard of Proof: Proposal documents experience in performing FATs for imaged equipment and reporting the results of those FATs.

14. Criteria: Information Technology Support. The Contractor will have experience troubleshooting, maintaining, and updating Infrastructure on an organization’s internal network, commonly known as an intranet (PWS 3.2.8.1).

Standard of Proof: Proposal demonstrates experience troubleshooting, maintaining, and updating Infrastructure on an intranet.

15. Criteria: Information Technology Support. The Contractor will have experience providing Backup and Disaster Recovery Service for an intranet (PWS 3.2.8.2).

Standard of Proof: The proposal documents experience providing Backup and Disaster Recovery Service for an intranet.

In performing the evaluation of the Technical Factor, the following ratings and descriptions will be used:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

B. VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The Government will assess the reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the HSIF Support RFP based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

Recent definition (see Attachment 0003 Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors).

Relevant definition (see Attachment 0003 Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors).

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other projects and/or contracts performed by the Offeror which it has knowledge, whether or not those projects and/or contracts are disclosed to the Government by the Offeror.

In evaluating performance history, the Government may review the Offeror’s current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreement: quality of performance, products and services; timeliness of performance;

operations management; subcontractor management; and problem resolution.

The Government may consider the recency, relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as quality, general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may have an impact on the overall Past Performance rating.

References submitted for first tier or lower tier subcontracts will not be evaluated.

The relevancy of the past performance information will be assessed as follows:

• Relevant: Present and/or past performance work effort involved essentially the same or similar scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

• Not Relevant: Present and/or past performance work effort involved little or none of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

In performing the evaluation of the Past Performance Factor, the following ratings and descriptions will be used:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below).

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required in Attachment 0003 Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. The Government is not obliged to search other volumes for the required information.

C. VOLUME III: PRICE

1. Price is an evaluation factor; however, it will not be adjectively scored. The FAR requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer is responsible for the determination of Price Reasonableness for the base and each option period. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404-1(b); the Government may use any one, or a combination of the techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine the price fair and reasonable. The Total Evaluated Price reflected on the Summary tab in the Price Matrix will be evaluated (which is derived by adding all CLIN base year prices, and all CLIN option year prices). The Government will make a fair and reasonable price determination in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(b), relying primarily upon competition.

2. The Government expects adequate competition and a comparison will be made of proposed prices received in response to the RFP. However, the Government reserves the right to require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Contractor adequate to determine the reasonableness of a proposal if competition was inadequate for that purpose. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

3. Offerors shall completely fill in all yellow highlighted cells within the price matrix and IAW the instructions in Attachment 0003 Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. Failure to completely fill in all yellow highlighted cell could render the offeror ineligible for award.

4. Prices shall be evaluated for the entire period of performance, inclusive of the two one-year option periods. The hourly rate will be multiplied by the hours for each labor Category to calculate the total price for each Labor Category. (NOTE: Hours are already calculated for the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE), i.e., 1 FTE = 1920 hours, 2 FTEs = 3840 hours). The price for each labor category will then be added together to reach a total price for Labor/CLIN X001. The Government Surrogate for ODCs will then be added to the Labor Total to reach a Total Performance Period Price. The prices for each period of performance will be added together to reach a Total Evaluated Price. Thus, the total evaluated price will include the twelve month base year and two one year option periods.

5. Unbalanced Pricing will be evaluated as required by FAR 15.404-1(g)(2). A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

D. VOLUME IV: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN

1. The property management plan is not an evaluation factor. The Government will determine responsibility by evaluating the Offeror’s property management plan to ensure the ability to comply with FAR 52.245-1 and provide for effective control of the Government property accountable to the resultant contract.