Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_FINAL.pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

Evaluation Factors for Award

a. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will utilize a competitive Lowest

Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR

15.101-2, as supplemented. By submission of its offer, the offeror accepts all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All technically acceptable offerors, with satisfactory past performance, shall be treated equally except for their prices. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government intends to select ONE contractor for award of this effort. The Government intends to make an award based on the initial proposal. If further questions are required, the contracting officer may contact the offeror or offerors.

The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without requests for additional information. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and the availability of funds. Award will be made on an all or none basis with options to meet mission requirements when funding is available.

For the purpose of award, the government shall evaluate proposals based on the evaluation factors described below and will be judged on a pass-fail basis only. No other rating or qualitative value will be assigned.

FACTOR 1 Cost/Price

FACTOR 2 Technical Acceptability (Pass/Fail)

FACTOR 3 Past Performance (Pass/Fail)

“Acceptable”- Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below).

“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.

Note: In case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Factor 1 - Price Evaluation.

The government shall conduct a price evaluation of all technically acceptable offers with satisfactory past performance. The offeror’s provided overall price in their proposal to include a cost breakdown for individual tasks and subtasks will be utilized as the primary focus for price evaluation.

Factor 2- Technical Acceptability:

Bidders must be qualified according to FAR 52.209-1. Each offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements in the performance work statement and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. Offeror’s technical proposals will not be compared to another offerors technical proposal. If an Offeror receives a technical rating of “Non-

Acceptable” they will receive a fail rating and will not be considered for contract award.

Page limit – Maximum of thirty (30) one-sided pages, 12 point font minimum, single spaced, 1" margins, and when printed must fit on size 8 1/2" by 11" paper. In addition, the PWS will be incorporated into the contract award as fully executable.

Factor 3 – Past Performance:

Offerors shall identify relevant past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and private). Submit no more than three recent/relevant past performance information. The government may seek relevant performance information on all responsive and otherwise Technically Acceptable Offerors through sources such as DCMA offices, CPARS or

PPRS or other government data bases and other sources that are available. The government shall not be limited in its search for performance data. When performance is evaluated, the outcome is either satisfactory resulting in a pass rating or unsatisfactory resulting in a fail rating.

Unsatisfactory performance will disqualify an offeror from award.

b. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers:

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost/price when compared to Government estimates, or are unbalanced, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

c. Source Selection Decision:

The government shall select the source based upon an evaluation of the offeror’s technical acceptability, satisfactory past performance and price. The government shall choose the lowest realistically priced, responsive, with satisfactory performance, and technically acceptable offer for award. If all areas of the offers are judged to have passed all of the LPTA evaluation factors, award will be made to the lowest priced reasonable offer.