Attachment 4 NGT Section M.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This section is intended to explain the rationale and criteria by which Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated.

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

M.1.1. This acquisition will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1.

M.1.2. The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror's initial Proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a Technical, Management, Past Performance, and Price perspective. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if necessary. The Government also reserves the rights to limit the competitive range for the purposes of efficiency, make an award to other than the low offer, or make no award should no Offeror prove to be an acceptable Offeror based on the criteria set forth in the solicitation.

M.1.3. During the evaluation process, the Government may, at its sole discretion, enter into clarifications or communications, as needed. The Government need not enter into clarifications or communications with all Offerors. In evaluating the proposals, the Government may establish a Competitive Range (reference FAR 15.306(c)) to reduce the Offerors participating in the competition to only those with the most highly rated Proposals. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified, in writing. If the Government enters into discussions, it will be with those Offerors within the Competitive Range.

Exchanges (clarifications, communications and discussions) with Offerors may be accomplished through the release of Evaluation Notices (ENs) through the Army’s Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST2Industry). However, the Government reserves the right to obtain clarifications; engage in communications;

and/or hold discussions with Offerors outside the ASSIST Tool if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

M.1.4. ASSIST allows Offeror(s) to receive and respond to ENs securely on-line. If discussions are required, ENs may be in the form of weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, or deficiencies. EN definitions are as follows:

Table 1 – Evaluation Notice (EN) Definitions

EN

Description

Definition

Deficiency A deficiency is a material failure of the proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of Weaknesses and/or Significant Weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

EN

Description

Definition

Weakness A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A significant weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength

A significant strength is 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.

Strength: A strength is 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.

Communications: Communications are exchanges between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Clarifications: Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and the Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Uncertainty: An uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

M.1.5. The Government intends to make an award to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the most advantageous (best value) to the Government, considering the Government’s evaluation of the cost and non-cost Factors, and the relative importance assigned to each. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and other information required by Section L of the solicitation. In the event of a conflict between the Offeror's Proposal and the solicitation, the solicitation shall take precedence.

M.1.6. Offers are solicited on an all or none basis. Failure to include all items and quantities listed may be cause for rejection of the offer.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS:

M.2.1 The Government intends to award one (1) Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery (IDIQ) contract. This FFP contract will include non-fee bearing Cost Reimbursable contract line item numbers (CLINs) for incidental material, expedited delivery, and travel. The base period will be two (2) years, with two (2) one-year evaluated option periods.

M.3. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS:

M.3.1. The Government may judge any Proposal that exhibits a lack of competence or a failure to comprehend the Government's requirements as being unrealistic, and it may evaluate and rate, or reject, the Proposal for such reasons. Furthermore, any significant inconsistency between the Technical and Price Proposals, if unexplained, may be grounds for rejection of the Proposal. The Government will evaluate each Proposal strictly in accordance with (IAW) its contents, and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror's Proposal.

M.3.2. The Government reserves the right to reject Proposals that are unreasonably low or high in Price. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a price realism analysis where none is otherwise required. The decision to conduct such an analysis remains at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

M.4. AWARD DECISION:

The following evaluation Factors will be utilized in the selection of the Best Value:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 4: PRICE

M.4.1. EVALUATION FACTORS RANKING

M.4.1.1. The relative order of importance assigned to the evaluation factors is as follows:

FACTOR 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than FACTOR 3 (Past Performance) and FACTOR 4 (Price).

FACTOR 1 (Technical) is more important than FACTOR 2 (Management).

FACTOR 2 (Management) is more important than FACTOR 3 (Past Performance) and FACTOR 4 (Price).

Collectively, FACTOR 1 (Technical) and FACTOR 2 (Management) are significantly more important than FACTOR 3 (Past Performance) and FACTOR 4 (Price).

FACTOR 3 (Past Performance) and FACTOR 4 (Price) are approximately equal in importance

M.4.1.2. Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

M.4.1.3. As non-price factors equalize, Price becomes more important.

M.4.1.4. If non-price factors are evaluated as comparatively equal between two (2) or more Offerors, Price may become a determinative factor.

M.4.1.5 To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical and Management factors, and a rating of no less than “Neutral” must be achieved for the Past Performance factor.

M.5. RESPONSIBILITY:

M.5.1. The Government will determine responsibility by analyzing whether the apparent successful Offeror complies with the requirements of FAR 9.1.

M.6. PROPOSAL EVALUATION:

M.6.1. All Proposals will be evaluated by a team of Government personnel, with advisory Contractor support, in strict compliance with the evaluation criteria described within the solicitation.

M.6.2. Offerors’ Technical and Management Proposals will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme:

Table 2 – Technical and Management Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding (Blue)

The Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements; the proposal contains multiple strengths; and the risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good (Purple)

The Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements; the proposal contains at least one strength; and the risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable (Green)

The Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal (Yellow)

The Proposal does not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and/or the risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (Red)

The Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one (1) or more deficiencies and/or the risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. The Proposal is unawardable.

M.6.3. Offerors’ Past Performance will be evaluated using the adjectival rating schemes described in Tables 3 and 4, below.

M.7. EVALUATION FACTORS:

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's Proposal based on its thoroughness, feasibility, and comprehension of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. The Government will consider the following factors:

M.7.1. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

The Technical Factor will be evaluated based upon an assessment of the Offeror's proposed Hardware and the Offeror’s experience.

M.7.1.1. TECHNICAL ADEQUACY. The Government will evaluate the Technical Volume to assess the feasibility of the Offeror's technical approach, the Offeror’s understanding of the hardware requirements specified in the PWS, and the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to provide the hardware identified for active Next Generation Transponder (NGT) equipment for the Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Coalition Partners, and other Federal Agencies in dynamic, global NGT environments. Proposals will be evaluated based on their completeness/adequacy, and the extent to which all technical requirements in the PWS have been considered, defined, and satisfied. Mere statements of compliance or repetition of the technical requirements, without a complete discussion and analysis, are unsatisfactory.

M.7.1.2. HARDWARE.

The Government will evaluate the hardware capabilities offered in the Proposal against the requirements of the PWS (reference Section J, Attachment 0001). The Government will evaluate the suitability of the offered equipment to operate in the operational environments outlined in the PWS. In addition to evaluating and verifying that requirements are met, the Government will also review any requirements that the Offeror exceeds. Finally, the Government will evaluate the presence of desired features offered in the Offeror's Proposal.

M.7.1.3. RELEVANT ASSURANCES – TECHNICAL.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical assurances to determine whether the Offeror demonstrates an ability to provide the proffered equipment worldwide in support of DoD, the USCG, NATO, Coalition Partners, and other Federal Agencies.

M.7.2. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT

The Management Factor will be evaluated based upon an assessment of the Offeror’s Management Support Plan, Customer Support, and Warranty.

M.7.2.1. MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PLAN. The Government will evaluate the Management Support Plan to assess the feasibility of the Offeror’s management approach, the Offeror’s understanding of the PWS requirements, and the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to ensure that contract oversight will be maintained for DoD, the

USCG, NATO, Coalition Partners, and other Federal Agencies in dynamic, global NGT environments. Proposals will be evaluated based on their completeness/adequacy, and the extent to which all of the program management requirements in the PWS have been considered, defined, and satisfied. Mere statements of compliance or repetition of the management support requirements, without a complete discussion and analysis, are unsatisfactory. The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has cited specific examples of project management practices in their Proposal, beyond standard project management practice models, as well as the extent to which those examples are beneficial and specific to DoD, the USCG, NATO, Coalition Partners, and other Federal Agencies.

M.7.2.2. CUSTOMER SUPPORT. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s customer support processes, including their processes for implementing and managing the required help desk and website portal, to determine whether the Offeror demonstrates an ability to meet the customer support requirements in the PWS.

M.7.2.3. WARRANTY. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s methodology and approach to meeting the warranty requirements specified in Section 16 of the PWS to determine whether the Offeror demonstrates an ability to meet the requirements and provide worldwide warranty support in dynamic, global NGT environments.

M.7.3. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

M.7.3.1. The Government will assess its degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the NGT PWS requirements successfully based on the Offeror’s record of Recent and Relevant past performance, as it relates to the effort required by this solicitation.

M.7.3.2. Recent is defined as prime contracts, delivery orders, or subcontracts where deliverables or services were performed, or are still being performed, anytime within the three (3) years prior to the issuance of this RFP.

M.7.3.3. Relevant is performance on recent contracts that have an average annual dollar value of more than $100,000 that encompass essentially the same or a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as the NGT PWS.

M.7.3.4. The Government will evaluate the relevancy of the Offeror’s Past Performance references using the following adjectival rating scheme:

Table 3 –Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Adjectival Rating Description Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

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

M.7.3.5. More relevant Past Performance, as defined above, will be given greater weight during the evaluation process.

M.7.3.6. The Government will assess its degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the PWS requirements successfully based on the following adjectival rating scheme:

Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the 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.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M. 7.3.7. In evaluating performance history, the Government will review the Offeror's current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreements.

M. 7.3.8. The Government reserves the right to consider any significant past performance information discovered during submission reviews up to award, to include any past performance that occurs after the solicitation closing date and prior to award, as well as any data obtained from other Government sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

M.7.3.9. The Government is not obliged to make another request, beyond the initial request for Proposals, for the required past performance reference information.

M.7.4. FACTOR 4 – PRICE

M.7.4.1. The Government will evaluate offers based on prices proposed for all the CLINs/SLINs for the Base and all Option Periods.

M.7.4.2. The Government will sum all the CLINs/SLINs for the Base and all Option Periods to determine the Total Price.

M.7.4.3. Proposed prices will be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. IAW 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 Government.

M.7.4.4. Price Analysis shall be used to determine price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). Additional analysis techniques may be used, as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. These methods of evaluation may include the use of information/input from other sources, including, but not limited to, other Government Agencies and personnel.

M.7.4.5. The evaluated contract life for this requirement is 48 months (2-year Base, plus two (2) one-year Option Periods).