Attachment_0004_-_Basis_for_Award_v2.pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M – Evaluations of Proposals- Incorporated as Attachment 004 in Section J of the Solicitation)

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will use best value LPTA source selection process, IAW FAR 15.101-2; Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, dated March 2016; and the Army Source Selection Supplement to the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated December 2012.

The U.S. Government (USG) will compare the offeror’s proposal to Section J – Attachment 0003, Section L – Instructions to Offerors in order to perform a compliance review. Any offeror’s proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Section J – Attachment 0003, Section L – Instructions to Offerors will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Award will be made using a LPTA Source Selection Process as described herein. The following evaluation factors will be used to determine award: Technical (inclusive of three subfactors: Logistical Readiness Plan, Maintenance Plan, and Quality Control Plan) and Price. ACC-RI will make an award to the responsible contractor whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the USG. Proposals shall be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors/subfactors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARD. ACC-RI intends to award a single FFP contract. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the USG.

M.3. COMPETITIVE RANGE & DISCUSSIONS. IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), after evaluation of all proposals, the PCO may make a competitive range determination for purposes of efficiency as set forth in Section L.

M.4. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS.

M.4.1. The USG will review the completed solicitation and amendments for accurate completion and applicable signatures.

M.4.2. The Executive Summary will not be evaluated. Rather, it will be reviewed to assist evaluators in familiarizing themselves with the approach each offeror will use to meet the requirements of the PWS.

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Logistical Readiness Plan

Subfactor 1.2: Maintenance Plan

Subfactor 1.3: Quality Control (QC) Plan

Factor 2: Price

M.6. EVALUATION APPROACH. As outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated March 2016, these factors and subfactors will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. These factors and subfactors will identify the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance and will evaluate price and the acceptability of products or services. Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors/subfactors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

- Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP. Marginal levels of overall detail in any subfactor could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

- 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 the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques.

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.

M.7. EVALUATION APPROACH. The USG will evaluate Technical factors and subfactors using the following adjectival scale:

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.8. TECHNICAL FACTOR. The term “technical”, as used herein, refers to technical factors and subfactors (non-price), other than past performance. The USG will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine if the offeror provides a sound and well-developed technical approach that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the personnel, resources, and compliance requirements necessary to properly execute contract requirements in a safe, secure, efficient, and quality based manner. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

M.8.1. Technical Subfactor 1.1 – Logistical Readiness Plan

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Logistical Readiness Plan to be at full operating capacity within two months of contract award. The offeror must state their plan to have all vehicles ready within two months of contract award to ensure continuous service of mission essential NTVs.

M.8.2. Technical Subfactor 1.2 – Maintenance Plan:

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Maintenance Plan for all performance periods. The offeror’s Maintenance Plan shall demonstrate that the offeror possesses the resources and/or the ability to keep the NTVs in like new operating condition. The plan shall detail information about replacement vehicles in case of accident or necessary scheduled or unscheduled maintenance. The offeror shall state how they will replace and/or repaint (to a different color) vehicles up to two times per year at the USG’s request. The offeror shall show their detailed plan for both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, as well as recovery of vehicles which are inoperable. The offeror’s plan shall fully detail the security of the maintenance facility. The offeror shall detail the recovery plan to include information regarding the recovery equipment and how the contractor will ensure the immobile vehicle remains in their control until arrival at the secured facility IAW the PWS. The plan must be specific on dealing with all law enforcement issues to ensure the safety of USG personnel.

M.8.3. Technical Subfactor 1.3 – QC Plan:

The subfactor evaluates offeror’s proposed QC Plan to demonstrate a sound technical approach, and a thorough understanding of quality methods and techniques for meeting performance standards and customer requirements. The QC plan shall include a comprehensive, independent plan for developing and maintaining the QC program. The QC Plan shall set forth internal and external quality control methods and policies for measuring, tracking, analyzing, reporting and implementing preventive and corrective actions required to ensure the quality performance standards required by the PWS and customer satisfaction is met. The QC Plan shall demonstrate a workable relationship, to include reporting requirements, between the offeror’s management personnel and the USG and specifies feedback mechanisms and corrective action methods for correcting defects in each functional area established in the PWS. The QC Plan shall demonstrate integration of QC system into daily operations and provides methods to be used for communications with the USG, measuring customer satisfaction, including a customer feedback program and a customer satisfaction reporting system.

M.9. PRICE FACTOR. Factor 2: Price

a) The Total Evaluated Price is the sum of all CLINs for all years of performance plus an additional six-month extension IAW FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

Offerors are not required to propose anything for the six-month extension period; the price will be calculated by the USG by taking 50% of each of the option year four CLIN prices. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest total evaluated price of those offers meeting the technical acceptability standards.

b) Price will be evaluated based on price reasonableness; the USG may utilize any one or a combination of the price analysis techniques and procedures as described under FAR 15.404-1(b). The USG reserves the right to request other than certified cost or pricing data in the event that additional data would be required to determine price reasonableness.

c) Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors will be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the USG .

d) Contractor Manpower Reporting CLINs 0008AA, 1008AA, 2008AA, 3008AA, 4008AA, and 5008AA are not separately priced.