Section_M-Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_-_Draft_for_FBO.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall proposal with appropriate consideration given to the following three evaluation factors: Technical (Factor I), Past Performance (Factor II), and Price (Factor III). Factors I, and II are of equal importance. All technical subfactors under Factor I 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 Factor II, and who has offered the lowest total price (Factor III). Offerors must be rated as acceptable for all factors and subfactors 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. The minimum guarantee will be $2500.00 for the entire contract period.

NOTE: In order to be considered for award, offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) under NAICS 562111 (Size Standard $38.5M) at the time their proposal is submitted.

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.

The Technical factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

2. FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

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

3. FACTOR III – PRICE.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN/SubCLIN prices from Section B of the SF33 of the RFP, including option years pricing.

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

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.) Equipment/Resources. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s ability to obtain and maintain the appropriate equipment necessary to perform the service. b.) Work Plan. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s ability to effectively provide refuse, recycling, roll off support services and maintain two collection stations within the specified period of performance. c.) Staffing. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s ability to provide adequate quantities of qualified staffing to perform the services as described in the PWS and based on historical refuse/recycling requirements at APG.

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. 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 562111. Relevant efforts must also be for refuse, recycling, and roll off support services for commercial or Governmental clients that are on average greater than $400K per year, on average.

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 Sections L and/or M, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

PRICE EVALUATION APPROACH.

Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. For evaluation purposes, the Government will evaluate price by adding the total of all CLIN/SubCLIN prices (from Section B of the RFP SF 33), including all options.

Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), and any other pricing tools necessary. Offers that are unbalanced between years or CLINs may be found unacceptable.