ATTACHMENT_5_W911S7-19-R-0002_TECHNICAL_EVALUATION_CRITERIA.pdf

WARNING-PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE-FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

WARNING-PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE-FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

W911S7-19-0002 Technical Evaluation Criteria CEHC Instruction SVC 19-11

1. General. The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. No price information is to be included in the technical proposal. Only those Offerors submitting technically acceptable proposals shall be considered for award.

2. Ratings. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully; each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements of the PWS. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the criteria listed below. A proposal must first be determined to be technically “acceptable” and receive a past performance rating of “acceptable” to be eligible for award and price becomes the controlling factor among those proposals.

The following Adjectival Ratings will be used for technical evaluations:

Acceptable: Acceptable quality and meets minimum PWS requirements necessary for satisfactory contract performance. Proposal contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses, and any identified weaknesses do not impact the probability of meeting minimum requirements. The degree of proposal risk is low to moderate.

Unacceptable: A proposal that fails to meet minimum PWS requirements necessary for acceptable performance. Where discussions are contemplated, the proposal contains weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies that cannot be corrected without a major rewrite of the proposal. The degree of proposal risk is high to very high.

3. Factors. Factors that will be evaluated are: Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. Evaluation will result in each factor being assigned an adjectival rating, with the exception Price, which will be evaluated as reasonable or unreasonable.

A. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY.

1. Sub-factor 1 - Technical Approach.

a. The ability to accomplish and demonstration of an understanding of the technical requirements, scope, and complexity within the deliverables/ tasks of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) in Paragraph 3 and sub-paragraphs.

b. Identification of proposed Labor Categories (to include Skill Levels) and associated Labor Hours.

2. Sub-factor 2- Staffing Approach

The level of experience, education, and technical qualifications of proposed personnel. Written documentation (i.e. certificates if applicable) must be provided for the qualifications indicated in Paragraph 4 Administrative Tasks and sub-paragraphs.

a. Organizational structure with lines of authority, reporting, and tracking that will ensure an orderly flow of work and responsiveness to all PWS requirements.

b. The adequacy of specific plans to recruit and retain qualified personnel throughout the contract period to include the ability to organize and allocate resources.

B. FACTOR 2: PRICE CRITERIA. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating or scored; it will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer, to determine whether it is reasonable and if it reflects the offeror's understanding of the work. This factor will be evaluated utilizing price analysis techniques identified in FAR Part 15.404-1.

Analysis will include review of price reasonableness and balanced pricing. Materially unbalanced prices and/or unreasonably high or low prices may cause the proposal to be deemed unacceptable and rejected.

4. Basis of Award. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by DFARS, and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Award shall be made to a single responsible Offeror who can (1) quote firm-fixed pricing; (2) whose proposal conforms to the contract solicitation; and (3) whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in the solicitation represents the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable offer to the Government.

A. As a basis for award, trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted.

B. Unreasonably proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

3. Sub-factor 3- Management Approach

C. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFROMANCE

Provide a list of all contracts and subcontracts completed and/or work experience that you have performed during the past three years that are relevant and similar in nature to this requirement along with the Contracting Officer/POC name, address, and telephone number. In addition, provide information on all contracts that the vendor has had terminated, in whole or part, for default during the past 3 years and contracts that are presently in the process of termination. These documents will be evaluated for:

a. Demonstrated ability to perform the work as it relates to this solicitation in the types of work required by the PWS. Specific aspects and nature of the program or project description.

b. Success and applicability of past performance with functions similar in size, scope and complexity as set forth in this requirement .