CEDAT_Section_M.docx

BASIS FOR AWARD (SECTION M)

A. INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: 1 – Technical, 2 – Past Performance, and 3 – Cost/Price.

The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance, which is more important than the Cost/Price factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor. Proposals that do not include all the information and materials prescribed in Section L of the solicitation may be disqualified from consideration for award upon receipt without further review by the Government. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

NOTE: All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of three (3) factors which shall be addressed as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth below in proposal submission Section L. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. 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.

b. 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.

2. Factor 1 – The Technical Factor Ratings below will be evaluated and rated separately focusing on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical factor requirements.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

3. Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS Code 541330. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

b. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the Offeror, and each major subcontractor, in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP.

c. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government may use data provided in the offerors proposal and data obtained from other sources. If an offeror states they have no recent or relevant past performance and the Government obtains negative past performance information from a source other than an offeror’s proposal, the information may be used to determine the performance confidence rating for that offeror. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems found in proposals.

d. The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY:

The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

(ii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT:

Assess the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT:

The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Performance Confidence Assessments

4. Factor 3– Cost/Price. The Government will evaluate your proposal of cost/price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine if it is fair and reasonable and 15.404-1(c) and/or 15.404-1(d) to determine realism.