Attachment 14 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award Amended 8.23.24.pdf

Section M- Attachment 14 - Evaluation Factors for Award Amended 8.23.24

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the non-cost and cost related factors while listed in the order of importance, to the degree the evaluation of non-cost factors reaches equivalence in the evaluation of offerors, the price factor becomes more important in the trade off analysis. The evaluation factors include Assembly/Manufacture, Storage & Distribution Capabilities, Program Management, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and Small Business Participation. The non-cost factors (Assembly/Manufacture, Storage & Distribution Capabilities, Program Management and Past Performance) will be rated using adjectival scales. Cost will be evaluated, but the factor will not receive adjectival rating. The Small Business Participation Volume will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating. The Government reserves the right to make an award to an Offeror other than the Offeror who submits the lowest total evaluated cost or highest rated proposal. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(a)). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition amongst the most highly rated proposals. The Government intends to award one contract.

The relative order of importance of the evaluation factors is as follows: Assembly/Manufacture, Storage & Distribution Capabilities and Program Management are more important than Past Performance, and when combined are more important than the Cost Factor and then Small Business Participation (([Assembly/Manufacture, Storage & Distribution Capabilities, Program Management > Past Performance Factor] > Cost >Small Business Participation). As the non-cost factors equal out, cost becomes more important.

Any proposal that is evaluated as unacceptable in terms of any of the evaluation factors may be rejected for such reasons. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror’s proposal.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) directs the Source Selection process and selects the Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government. The SSA performs this analysis by comparing the strengths, weaknesses, and the cost/price of the competing proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government.

M.1.1 UNACCEPTABLE OFFERS. The Government may render any proposal unacceptable that includes as a minimum:

a. Merely offers to perform work according to the Request For Proposal (RFP) terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFP terms without support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation.

b. Reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the RFP requirements due to submission of a proposal that is unrealistically high or low in cost and/or unrealistic in terms of technical approach.

c. Contains any unexplained significant inconsistency between the proposed effort and cost, which implies the Offeror has (1) an inherent misunderstanding of the scope of work, or (2) an inability to perform the resultant contract.

d. Is unbalanced within the meaning of FAR Part 15 or is unbalanced as to costs for the first ordering period and for subsequent ordering periods where costs are significantly high or low for one given period versus another period.

e. Fails to meaningfully respond to the Proposal Preparation Instructions specified in Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation.

f. Cross references from one volume to another volume. All volumes shall be complete with no cross-referencing between volumes.

g. Is submitted by a Large Business and does not include a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

M1.2. RESPONSIBILITY. Pursuant to FAR 9.103, contracts will only be placed with contractors that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey on any and all Offerors.

M.2. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

FACTOR 1 –Assembly/Manufacture, Storage and Distribution Capabilities

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Capabilities to the degree that they demonstrate the capabilities described in Section L.11.2. Volume II Content ‐ Assembly/Manufacture, Storage and Distribution Capabilities.

The following ratings will be used for the evaluation of Assembly/Manufacture, Storage and Distribution Capabilities:

Assembly/Manufacture, Storage and Distribution

Capabilities Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Definitions:

Strength An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

FACTOR 2 – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Program Management Volume to the degree that they demonstrate the capabilities in Section L.10. Volume III ‐ Program Management.

The following ratings will be used for the evaluation of Program Management:

Program Management Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance will be evaluated to the extent that the past performance submitted is relevant to the current requirement and the level of confidence given that past performance will lead to successful completion of delivery orders for conformance testing of DBPAO products and delivery under this ID/IQ. Offerors with no history of past performance shall be rated neutral.

Rating definitions:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In additional to relevancy and confidence level, recency and quality of past performance records will be considered.

Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

The quality assessment will be based on documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, information from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

FACTOR 4 – Price The Government will use Price Analysis methods to evaluate the proposed unit prices and any proposed price escalations to determine if the proposed prices are reasonable. While not anticipated to have a significant impact relative to the overall expected contract value, costs that the Army would incur to switch performance from the current contractor to a new contractor may be considered as part of the source selection decision.

FACTOR 5 – Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan (required for all Offerors--both Large and Small Businesses) in accordance with DFARS 215.304 requirements. Failure to receive this plan shall result in an unacceptable rating.

Small Business Participation Plan Ratings:

Acceptable Participation plan clearly shows a commitment to small business participation.

Unacceptable Participation plan does not clearly show a commitment to small business participation.

The Government will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan using the ratings below:

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirement of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirement of the solicitation.

Failure to submit an acceptable SBSP will prevent an offeror from receiving contract award. The SBSP is a required submission from Large Businesses only. AFARS Appendix DD “Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Guide” will be used to evaluate the SBSP and assign a rating.

The SBSP demonstrates the offeror’s approach to maximizing opportunities for small business concerns during performance. The SBSP complies with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan (June 2020)” and DFARS 252.219-7003 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) – Basic (Dec 2019).”