DRAFT Section M.pdf

Section M

M.1 Basis of Award

M.1.1 The Government plans to award a single three-year Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract. The Government will select for award the proposal which represents the best value to the Government as described below. The Government reserves the right to choose not to award a contract if such action is in the Government’s best interest.

M.1.1.1 There are three evaluation factors:

Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Evaluation Factor 2 – Price Evaluation Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

The relative order of importance of these Factors are described in Section M.4 below.

M.1.1.2 Selection of the proposal which represents the best value to the Government will be determined on a source selection trade-off basis from offeror’s proposals which are otherwise eligible for award.

M.1.1.3 To be eligible for award:

a. The Offeror must be registered in BETA System for Award Management (beta.SAM.gov) (see provision FAR 52.204-7); and

b. The Offerors proposal shall be determined responsible (Section M.3.6); and

c. The Offerors proposal shall not be assessed with a Deficiency (ies) (per FAR Part 15.001); and

M.1.1.3.1 Proposals which are eligible for award in accordance with Section M.1.1.3 will be subject to the source selection trade-off process, considering the evaluation Factors and their relative order of importance as cited in Section M.4, to identify the proposal which represents the best value to the Government. The Government will weigh the evaluated proposals (other than the Price Factor) against the Price Factor. As part of the best value determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal shall be considered in selecting the offer that represents the best overall value to the Government.

M.1.2 Importance of Total Evaluated Price. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal (1) is otherwise eligible for award under Section M.1.1.3, and (2) represents the best value to the Government. This may not be the offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price. However, the closer the offeror's evaluations are to each other in those Factors other than the Price Factor, the more important the Price Factor becomes in the decision. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the three evaluation Factors stated herein, cost/price may be controlling when:

a. Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-price factors; or

b. The advantages of a higher rated, higher priced proposal are not considered to be worth the price premium.

M.2 Rejection of Offers

M.2.1TheGovernment may reject any proposal if doing so is in the Government's best interest at any time after receipt of proposals. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following proposal conditions:

a. The proposal offers a product that does not meet all stated technical requirements of the solicitation; or

b. The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the instructions in Section L of this solicitation; or

c. The proposal fails to comply with the Trade Agreements (TA) provision and clause in Section L; or

d. When a proposal merely offers to perform work according to the solicitation terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the solicitation terms and does not provide support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation; or

e. Reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the solicitation requirements due to submission of a proposal which is unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments; or

f. The proposal proposes exceptions to the RFP requirements, attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or solicitation terms and conditions; or

g. The proposal contains one or more Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) that cannot be avoided or mitigated. Refer to Section L.2.4 of this solicitation, “Organizational Conflict of Interest”; or

h. The proposal is unbalanced as to price See Section M.4.2.1.3; or .

i. The proposal is not in English (American Standard) or in US Dollars; or

j. A proposal submitted for less than all the requirements called for by this solicitation.

M.3 Evaluation and Source Selection Process

M.3.1 Compliance Review. After receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offeror’s proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the solicitation instructions, and whether the proposal meets any of the conditions listed in M.2, Rejection of Offerors.

M.3.2 Evaluation Process. Selection of the successful offeror shall be made following an assessment of each proposal, based on the response to the information called for in Section L of this solicitation, and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described herein.

M.3.3 Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to direct the source selection process and select the offeror for contract award.

M.3.4 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). An SSEB has been established by the Government to evaluate proposals in response to this solicitation. The SSEB is comprised of technically qualified individuals who have been selected to conduct this evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria for this solicitation. Careful, full and impartial consideration will be given to the evaluation of all proposals received pursuant to this solicitation. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel.

M.3.5 Award without Discussions: In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (this excludes clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If conducted, the scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgement. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.3.6 Determination of Responsibility. Per FAR 9.103, the Government will place a contract only with an Offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible or refer the matter to the SBA per FAR 19.602. A prospective Offeror, in order to be eligible for award for this acquisition, must be able to demonstrate it meets the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. As a part of this determination, the Contracting Officer may utilize the Offeror's proposed prices, as well as other information, to determine if the prospective contractor has adequate financial resources to perform the contract. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey on any or all Offeror(s) or its subcontractors to aid the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of each Offeror's proposal and ensure a selected Offeror is responsible. To verify an Offeror meets the responsibility criteria at FAR 9.104, the Government reserves the right to request additional information, to include, but not limited to the following:

(a) Arrange a visit to the Offeror(s) plant and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey; or

(b) Request an Offeror provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information. If an Offeror does not submit the requested information within seven working days from the date of the receipt of the request, or if an Offeror refuses to provide the Government access to its facility, the Government may determine the Offeror to be non-responsible. If the Government visits the Offeror's facility, the Offeror shall ensure current data relevant to the proposal is available for Government personnel to review.

M.3.7 Consistency. Each volume of the Offerors proposal shall be consistent with the other proposal volumes and shall demonstrate the understanding and ability to perform according to the requirements of the contract. The Offeror should provide supporting documentation in sufficient detail to permit a complete evaluation of the proposal. The Government may conduct a crosswalk between the information provided in Offerors proposal volumes to assess whether the Offeror submits consistent proposal information. Any inconsistency between proposal volumes, which indicates the offeror has an inherent misunderstanding of the requirements or an inability to perform the resultant contract, may result in an offeror being assessed with increased risk in one or more Factors and/or ineligible for award.

M.4 Evaluation Criteria

There are three evaluation factors:

Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Evaluation Factor 2 – Price Evaluation Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

The relative order of importance of these three factors is as follows: The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor which is significantly more important than the Small Business Participation Factor. As required to be defined by FAR 15.304(e)(1), the non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

M.4.1 Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical

M.4.1.1 Based on the extent and credibility of the data provided, the Government will assess the risk associated with the Offerors ability to demonstrate that it will meet the following requirements:

M.4.1.1.1 ISO certification for quality system by an ISO accredited third party registrar to meet the requirements of ISO 9001 (SOW Section C.3.3)

If the offeror provides an ISO certification for quality system by an ISO accredited third party registrar to meet the requirements of ISO 9001 in the proposal, the offeror will be assessed as low risk for this requirement. If the offeror does not provide the certification in the proposal, the offeror may be assessed as higher risk for this requirement.

M.4.1.1.2 Certification by the American Society for NonDestructive Testing (ASNT) as a NDT Level II inspector or certification by the ASNT as a NDT Level I inspector under the supervision of an NDT Level II inspector for Ultrasonic Testing (Attachment 0001- MOTCO STS Crane Specifications, Section 2.7.1.4)

If the offeror provides an ANST certification of NDT Level II inspector or certification of an NDT Level 1 inspector under the supervision of NDT Level II inspector for Ultrasonic Testing in the proposal, the offeror will be assessed as low risk for this requirement. If the offeror does not provide the certification(s) in the proposal, the offeror may be assessed as higher risk for this requirement.

M.4.1.1.3 Professional engineer license for the Contractor's Engineer of Record (EOR) for each discipline (SOW Section C.2.1.1)

If the offeror provides a Professional Engineer License for the Contractor’s Engineer of Record (EOR) for the structural, mechanical, and electrical disciplines, the offeror will be assessed as low risk for this requirement. If the offeror does not provide the licenses for the structural, mechanical, and electrical disciplines, the offeror may be assessed as higher risk for this requirement.

M.4.1.2 No evaluation credit will be given for providing data that exceeds the requirements identified above.

M.4.2 Evaluation Factor 2 – Price

M.4.2.1 The Price Factor evaluation will consider the Total Evaluated Price to the Government. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s price proposal for price reasonableness and unbalanced pricing.

M.4.2.1.1 Total Evaluated Price: The Price Factor evaluation will result in a determination of the Total Evaluated Price. The Total Evaluated Price equals the sum of the following:

(a) The total proposed price, as calculated in Attachment 0002 - Pricing Workbook; and

(b) If applicable, any other price adjustments, for evaluation purposes only, that are required in accordance with the (i) FAR; (ii) DFARS; or (iii) clauses, provisions, or RFP Attachments contained within this solicitation.

M.4.2.1.2 Price Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate whether or not the offeror’s proposed price is reasonable. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may make a determination of reasonableness by any means allowable under FAR 15.404-1.

M.4.2.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques.

Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for more information on unbalanced pricing.

M.4.3 Evaluation Factor 3 – Small Business Participation (SBP)

M.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offeror’s approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing opportunities in meeting the SBP goals identified in this solicitation.

M.4.3.2 The evaluation will be based on the extent of SBP proposed and credibility of the data provided in the proposal measured against the SBP Factor goals for this solicitation.

M.4.3.3 The solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount', which is defined for this SBP Factor as total proposed amount for all of the Basic CLINs. The Government's SBP goals for this solicitation are:

9% Small Business (SB) 1.4% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 1.4% Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) 0.8% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB) 0.8% Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) 0.8% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

For Other Than Small Business Offerors ONLY, the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal is BOTH of the following:

1.4% of ‘Total Contract Amount’ 1.4% of ‘Total Subcontracting Amount’

M.4.3.4 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Government Goals.

M.4.3.4.1 Where the Offeror proposes SBP higher than the Government's goals and the Government has determined that achievement of said SBP is credible, or where the

Offeror is assessed as credibly being able to achieve or exceed the Government's goals, the Government may assign the Offeror a strength against such proposal.

M.4.3.4.2 Where the Offeror proposes SBP lower than the Government's goals, or where the Offeror is assessed as not credibly being able to achieve the Government's goals, the Government may assign a weakness or significant weakness against such proposal.

M.4.3.5 Contractual Goals.

If the awardee is an Other Than Small Business, the data submitted as part of the SBP Factor shall be consistent with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Reference Section L.4.4.5) which will be incorporated in the resultant contract, regardless of whether the Offeror proposed goals for the SBP Factor above, at, or below the Government's solicitation goals.