Section_M_DRAFT_ONLY.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal with appropriate consideration given to the following four evaluation factors: Technical (Factor I), Past Performance (Risk)-(Factor II), Small Business Participation (Factor III), and Price (Factor IV). Factors I, II, and III are of equal importance. All technical subfactors are of equal importance. Award will be made to the single responsible offeror, whose proposal has been determined to be technically acceptable (Factor I), acceptable for Factors II-III, and who has offered the lowest total price. Offerors must be rated as acceptable for all factors to receive the award. Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. Offerors should ensure the completeness of their proposals and offer their best terms and conditions with their initial proposals. If negotiations are considered necessary, they will be conducted with those offerors in a competitive range. The determination of the competitive range will be the responsibility of the Contracting Officer and the Source Selection Authority. Factors and sub-factors are not numerically weighted. The Government will award one (1) single award Indefinite Delivery – Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract as a result of this solicitation.

NOTE: In order to be considered for award, offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) under NAICS 562211 (Size Standard $38.5M).

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

1. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL.

The following subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

A detailed explanation of the criteria for evaluation is set forth in the “evaluation approach”, paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor/sub-factor an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating.

Each sub-factor will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach associated with each factor meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. To receive an overall “Acceptable” factor rating, all sub-factors must receive an “Acceptable” rating.

i) Factor I: Technical. The Technical factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

Subfactor A: Work Plan Subfactor B: Staffing and Management Subfactor C: Emergency Operations Plan Subfactor D: Corporate Training Program

Subfactor E: Data Processing Resources Subfactor F: Reporting Procedures

2. FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

3. FACTOR III – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Each offeror’s small business participation commitment will be reviewed on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

4. FACTOR IV – PRICE.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN/SubCLIN prices, including all options from the Schedule of Services attachment to the solicitation.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).The SST will establish the factors to be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis.

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is an 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.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH.

The Technical factor is divided into the following sub-factors and evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis.

Table – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Proposals will be evaluated to determine the degree to which offerors have demonstrated the technical approach and addressed the subfactors for the overall factor. a.) Work Plan. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s ability to effectively remove and dispose of all types of waste including chemical agent related waste within the specified period of performance. b.) Staffing and Management. This subfactor will be evaluated for the experience and education level of proposed staffing (per the PWS) and the contractor’s ability to provide adequate staffing to perform the services described in the PWS. Proposals will also be evaluated to determine whether proposed management (as outlined in the PWS) possess the qualifications, certifications, and experience to successfully manage and execute the requirement. c.)

Emergency Operations Plan. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s knowledge and development of Emergency procedures and the ability to react to environmental emergencies. d.) Corporate Training Program. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine how the offeror will maintain all federal, state, and local environmental training requirements and the level of training mandated and required to perform the work in the PWS. e) Data Processing Resources. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine the offeror ability to provide error free waste tracking, profiling, manifesting, and invoicing . f.) Reporting Procedures. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s ability to provide timely and accurate reports, invoices, and analysis.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION APPROACH.

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. In addition, the Government will evaluate the offerors compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. The Past Performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing services that meet the contract requirements. Recent past performance is considered to be efforts awarded or substantially performed during the past five (5) years, from the issue date of this RFP, Relevant past performance is considered to be how relevant a recent effort or efforts accomplished by the offeror were to the solicited effort. Relevant efforts are defined as services that are the same as or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 562211 are considered relevant. Relevant efforts would also be for hazardous waste disposal services for commercial or Governmental clients that are greater than $1M/year.

Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachment 2. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all the information available.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files (i.e. CPARs) or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance.

Data used in conducting past performance assessments shall not extend past five years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data as a prime. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror including sources outside the Government.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal against the above requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable for the Past Performance factor, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Past Performance Ratings

NOTE: If an Offeror submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offerors past performance, that Offeror will receive a neutral/unknown rating (i.e.), the Offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. If the Offeror provides reference information that is not relevant and current as defined in L and M, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION EVALUATION APPROACH.

All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment that they are demonstrating for the proposed acquisition, and their prior level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The following shall evidence small business participation:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The realism of the proposal;

e. Past performance of the offeror in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and, for all large business offerors, FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan;

f. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition;

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

g. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof. The Department of Defense (DOD) has established small business goals as an assistance to assure small business receives a fair proportion of DOD awards.

The goals for this procurement are as follows: Small Business: 27.2% of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business: 9.7% of the total contract value;

Woman-Owned Small Business: 8.3% of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: 4.5% of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business: 5% of the total contract value;

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business: 3.3% of the total contract value.

PRICE EVALUATION APPROACH.

Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN/SubCLIN prices, including all options from the Schedule of Services attachment to the solicitation. The Contracting Officer (with assistance from the SSEB Chairman, as requested) will conduct a price analysis and make a determination as to whether the individual prices and the total price proposed is consistent with the proposed effort. Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), and any other pricing tools necessary.