Attachment_0004_-_Basis_for_Award_v3_15Nov2017.pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD (Attachment 0004 – Evaluations of Proposals)

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will use best value LPTA source selection processes, IAW FAR 15.101-2; Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 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 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 Attachment 0003 – Instructions to Offerors may not be evaluated and may not be further considered for award. Award will be made using the LPTA Source Selection Process described herein. The following evaluation factors will be used to determine award:

Technical (inclusive of four subfactors: Logistical Readiness Plan, Maintenance and Recovery Response Plan, Quality Control Plan, and Corporate Experience, Management, and Key Personnel) and Price. ACC-RI will make up to eight Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) awards to the lowest priced, technically acceptable contractor(s) found to be responsible, whose offers conform to the solicitation and are 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 AWARDS. ACC-RI intends to award up to eight Firm Fixed Price BPAs. The USG reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no awards 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 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) may make a competitive range determination for purposes of efficiency as set forth in Section L. The USG also reserves the right to award without discussions.

M.4. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS.

The USG will review the completed solicitation and amendments submitted by the Offeror for accurate document completion and applicable signatures. Unless fill-ins are required, individual copies of the attachments within the ‘List of Attachments’ Section of the solicitation DO NOT need to be included within this submission.

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS. The USG will evaluate the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Logistical Readiness Plan (LRP)

Subfactor 2: Maintenance and Recovery Response Plan Subfactor 3: Quality Control (QC) Plan

Subfactor 4: Corporate Experience, Management, and Key Personnel

Factor 2: Price

M.6. OVERALL EVALUATION APPROACH. As outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, the factors and subfactors will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. The factors and subfactors will identify the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance. 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. TECHNICAL 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). 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 – Logistical Readiness Plan (LRP)

This USG will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed LRP adequately details its approach to and demonstrates its understanding of the processes, procedures, capabilities and experience it will employ and rely upon to be at full operating capacity with base access within 60 days of contract award. The USG will evaluate whether the LRP included detailed information on badging and ensuring contractor personnel will have base access, where required, within the transition period of 60 days. The USG will evaluate if the Offeror detailed in its plan the technical specifications of the proposed NTVs with sufficient detail so as to determine wither the NTVs proposed satisfy the requirements listed in PWS. The technical specifications of all proposed NTVs must meet or exceed all technical requirements listed in in the PWS, and the resulting Price Matrix (Attachment 0002 of the solicitation) by CLIN/NTV type. The USG will evaluate how the Offeror will obtain vehicles with optional packages, to include off road vehicles, as stated in the PWS to ensure it can provide every type of vehicle required by the USG. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror’s LRP adequately describes the resource(s) the Offeror will be using in each of the four countries that the vehicles will be provided, whether owned, subcontracted, procured or any combination thereof, and how it will provide all CLINs required by the USG in accordance with the PWS. The USG will evaluate if the Offeror’s LRP addresses how quickly the contractor can respond to situations where the USG need for vehicles, maintenance, or pick up for inoperable vehicle(s) is immediate. The USG will determine if the Offeror adequately detailed how it will ensure continued registration, licensing, and inspection compliance (if applicable) throughout the life of the BPA.

The USG will evaluate how the Offeror will be able to ensure delivery to all required locations, 365 days a year. The USG will also evaluate the English translated copy of this vehicle insurance plan to ensure the insurance coverage meets all terms and conditions of the PWS. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.6.1.

M.8.2. Technical Subfactor 2 – Maintenance and Recovery Response Plan:

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Maintenance and Recovery Response Plan for all performance periods and in all four countries. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror’s plan adequately details its approach to and demonstrates its understanding of the processes, procedures, capabilities and experience it will employ and rely upon to carry out all scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, as well as recovery of vehicles which are inoperable. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror’s plan adequately discusses how immobile vehicles will be recovered in each country. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror adequately detailed the plan to include information regarding the recovery equipment. The USG will evaluate if the Offeror’s plan adequately details information about replacement vehicles in case of accident or necessary scheduled or unscheduled maintenance leaving the USG without the vehicle for greater than 24 hours, in all four countries. The USG will evaluate if the Offeror thoroughly details how it will ensure a fair and reasonable price for maintenance when a vehicle is damaged and the USG is at fault. The USG will evaluate if the Offeror’s plan adequately describes its ability to provide trained mechanics and adequate maintenance facilities without degradation to vehicle readiness or availability in all four countries. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Maintenance and Recovery Response Plan demonstrates that the Offeror possesses the resources and/or the ability to keep the NTVs in like new operating condition in all four countries. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s plan on how it will obtain police reports anytime a leased vehicle is involved in an accident IAW host nation laws. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.6.2.

M.8.3. Technical Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan:

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed QC Plan IAW the PWS, to demonstrate a sound technical approach, and a thorough understanding of quality methods and techniques for meeting performance standards and customer requirements in accordance with the PWS. The USG will evaluate whether the QC plan included and adequately explained the following:

1) Detailed a comprehensive, independent plan for developing and maintaining the QC program;

2) Set forth and detailed 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 are met;

3) Demonstrated a workable relationship, to include reporting requirements, between the Offeror’s management personnel and the USG;

4) Specified feedback mechanisms and corrective action methods for correcting defects in each functional area established in the PWS;

5) Demonstrated integration of QC system into daily operations;

6) Provided methods to be used for communications with the USG, measuring customer satisfaction, including a customer feedback program and a customer satisfaction reporting system; and

7) Demonstrated its plan to ensure compliance with FAR Clause 52.222-50, Combatting Trafficking in Persons.

The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.6.3.

M.8.4. Technical Subfactor 4 – Corporate Experience, Management, and Key Personnel Plan:

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s Corporate Experience and Key Personnel. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal clearly and fully demonstrates that the Offeror has: 1) skill, experience, and management expertise in all areas of the PWS and 2) the resources needed to meet the requirements of the PWS, including compliance with Host Nation Labor Laws, as well as other international requirements, to successfully execute the requirements over the life of the contract.

The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.6.4.

M.9. PRICE FACTOR.

Price will be an evaluated factor; however, it will not be adjectively scored. The PCO will determine price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404-1(b), Price analysis for commercial and non-commercial items, relying primarily upon competition. The USG expects adequate price competition. However, the USG reserves the right to require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Offeror adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer if competition is inadequate for that purpose.

As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing found between ordering periods, contract line item numbers (CLINs), or sub-line items, as applicable. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), offers may be rejected / ineligible for award if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the USG.

The Total Evaluated Price will be derived from the Pricing Matrix.

- For evaluation purposes of each CLIN, the USG will calculate Base Year and Ordering Period Totals by multiplying the proposed unit prices for each ordering period by the estimated quantity of NTVs and estimated number of months or days, as appropriate. There will be no estimated time period factored into the Yearly CLINs. The “52.217-8 Extension Total” for each CLIN will be automatically calculated as half of the Ordering Period Six Total. The Base Year Total, Ordering Period Totals and 52.217-8 Extension Total will be summed to reach the “Total Price Inclusive of All Ordering Periods” for each CLIN. Each CLIN total is summed to reach a Total for that AOR service mix (i.e., Jordan yearly, Jordan Monthly, Jordan Daily) to include the assigned Damages figure for CLIN X014AA.

NOTE: The estimated quantities and estimated number of months and days come from historical figures and will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Several types of vehicles and options have been added to this requirement.

Therefore, several CLINs have been added to this requirement. The CLINs that have been added are assigned an estimated quantity of 5 for evaluation purposes only, as there is no historical data for them.

- On the Total Evaluated Price tab, a “Weighting” factor is assigned to each AOR service mix based on the Fiscal Year 2016 total dollars for that service mix. For example, if the total FY 16 dollars for all AOR service mixes was $100 and the Jordan-Yearly FY 16 dollars were $24.71, the weight assigned to Jordan-Yearly would be 24.71%. Likewise, if the total FY 16 dollars for all AOR service mixes was $100 and the Kuwait-Monthly FY 16 dollars were $0.75, the weight assigned to Kuwait-Monthly would be 0.75%.

- The assigned weights are applied to the Totals for each AOR service mix.

- All weighted totals are summed to reach the Total Evaluated Price for each AOR service mix. This is the amount that will be used for the purpose of selecting the apparently successful Offeror from a pricing standpoint.

Unbalanced Pricing: Proposals 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.

M.10. BPA ORDER COMPETITION

After BPAs are established, all order competitions will be conducted in the following manner:

FAR 16.505(b)(1), will be utilized for each order exceeding $3,500.00.

- The USG will solicit the BPA holders when a new order is required to be placed.

Each evaluation will specify the evaluation standards. The Offeror will have the option to keep the prices as they were originally submitted or submit unit prices lower than its original proposal. Only downward adjustments to the awarded prices will be permitted.