PWs Section M CRREL AGST.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 OVERVIEW

The Government will evaluate the proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors stated in this solicitation. The evaluation factors in this solicitation are described herein using the evaluation rating systems outlined for selection procedures.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

**In accordance with the Class Deviation - Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul Part 12, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Part 212 (2026-O0028) this requirement will follow the simplified procedures associated with the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services. Award will be made to the offeror the Government determines will be able to accomplish the necessary work in the manner most advantageous to the Government and whose offer represents the best value to the Government, after considering all factors, including evaluated cost. Best value tradeoff means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's evaluation, provides the greatest overall best value in response to the requirement and to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. Award will be made based on the overall best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. Award will not be made to any contractor unless the contractor's combined technical rating is acceptable or higher. Proposals will be evaluated utilizing the following evaluation procedures and factors:

EVALUATION PROCUEDURES:

Factor I – Technical and Factor II – Past Performance are of equal importance and when combined are significantly more important to Factor III - Price.

The Government intends to select ONE contractor for award of this effort. For the purpose of award, the government shall evaluate offers based on the evaluation factors described below:

3.0 Evaluation Factors

Factor Location Description FACTOR 1 VOLUME 1 Technical – Offerors shall describe their

Operations Plan FACTOR 2 VOLUME 2 Past Performance – Offeror shall demonstrate acceptable past performance.

FACTOR 3 VOLUME 3 Standard Form 1449, Section L Pricing

Schedule

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

I. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

A. Factor 1 – Subfactor 1: Operations Plan

Offeror’s Operation Plan should include the following:

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s operations plan as specified below, for adequacy and strength to determine compliance with and capability to meet the Government’s requirements. The plan must adhere to the proposal submission instructions and address the Offeror’s approach and methodology and depth of understanding of the contract performance requirements.

FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY RATING SYSTEM AND DEFINITIONS

Technical Factors Rating. The rating for Technical will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The adjectival ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

II. FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

To demonstrate past performance, the Offeror shall provide performance on past or current contracts of a similar type, size, scope and complexity, have been completed within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation, including references, with names and contact information of the references who can verify such past performance.

New Corporate Entities -- New corporate entities may submit data on prior relevant and recent contracts (within the last 3 calendar years) involving its officers and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the Offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Past performance information on work for state and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that are similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar federal contracts. Offeror may submit information on key personnel, major subcontractors, and work performed as part of a team or joint venture and other previous reincarnation of its current organization.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

a. Past Performance Evaluation. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current requirement.

b. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past contracts.

The Government’s assessment will focus on contracts that meet the following conditions:

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Recency. Only contracts completed within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation will be considered.

Relevancy. Only contracts which were/are relevant in size and scope of work will be considered.

The Government will examine the Offeror’s record of satisfying customer requirements, including consideration of the Offeror’s:

1. Technical performance, including technical performance, staffing, subcontractor management, quality control, safety, and commitment to customer satisfaction as evidenced by reasonable and cooperative behavior.

2. Cost Controls. Record of containing and forecasting costs on previously performed contracts.

3. Schedule. Record of adherence to contractual schedules.

The Government will use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. The Offeror is cautioned that while the Government will consider data from other sources, the burden of demonstrating satisfactory past performance rests with the Offeror. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and/or relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, providing the Offeror supplies a certified statement with their offer that no past performance information is available.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. Relevancy is not a separate factor but a component of the overall Past Performance assessment.

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.

Performance Confidence Factor Rating Definitions. A rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence or Unknown Confidence (as defined below) will be assigned to the Past Performance Evaluation. The Past Performance Confidence ratings will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

III. PRICE

The contractor shall submit a completed Standard Form 1449 and Pricing Schedule (Section L attachment 02). The provided price schedule includes estimated hours for each hourly rate. NOTE: The quantities for hourly rates are estimated for price evaluation only and do not constitute the government to perform or award the estimated hours. The price proposal shall include a total number derived from the annual cost, and hourly rates/estimated hours as outlined in the provided pricing schedule for the base year and all option years. This will be used to determine price.

By submission of an offer pursuant to this solicitation, the Offeror agrees that the capability presented in the proposal becomes a contract requirement upon award of a contract.

No changes, substitutions, or deviations from the accepted proposal may be made without the approval of the Contracting Officer. You, as the Offeror, agree that the explicit capability presented in your proposal shall be provided under this contract at the stated price.