Section M Evaluation Criteria.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

0. BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

0. M-III. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

0. a. Basis for Contract Award

0. This is a lowest price technically acceptable award conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable offer IAW FAR 15.101-2( LPTA SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS). In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor.

0. Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted. Unreasonably high/ unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals, may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

0. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

0. b. Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the request for proposal (RFP) Schedule will be considered ineligible for award. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

0. Evaluation Criteria.

Evaluation criteria consist of factors and sub-factors. The proposals will be evaluated under three (3) evaluation factors.

Factor 1: Mission Capability

Sub-factor 1: Labor Plan Sub-factor 2: Phase-In Plan Sub-factor 3: Management Plan Sub-factor 4: Quality Control Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Factor 1: Mission Capability: The Mission Capability Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Mission Capability by assessing their proposed approach and processes for meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements in the PWS and assigning either an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as shown in Table1 below.

Sub-factor 1: Labor Plan: The Offeror’s Labor Plan will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror has an adequate plan to recruit and retain qualified personnel throughout the life of the contract. The Staffing Plan will also be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror has proposed staffing that is sufficient to ensure all major areas of the PWS are successfully executed.

Element 1. Recruitment and Retention: The Offeror shall address how they plan to acquire and retain qualified personnel throughout the life of the contract (initial hiring of personnel, retention and the ability to replace departing personnel in a timely manner). The Offeror shall discuss the organization’s staffing risk mitigation plan and approach to hiring, training and cross training used to reduce turnover and position vacancies. IAW PWS 5.0 and TE1 ANNEX D 2.0

Element 2. Proposed Staffing: The Offeror shall list personnel by section of the PWS and identify position as “Exempt” or “Non-Exempt”. If the position is identified as “Non-Exempt”, the proposed SCA Occupation Code and Title shall be identified as well. The Offeror shall include the qualification requirements imposed for each position proposed. The Offeror shall include how personnel, including management personnel, will satisfy specific qualifications (to include security clearances) required by the PWS. The Offeror shall include the availability of key personnel proposed. The Offeror shall specifically discuss relevant experience and training of proposed personnel. The Offeror shall discuss specific lessons learned or best practices developed that are relevant to this requirement. In the event that cross-training/cross-utilization of personnel is proposed, the Offeror shall include their approach to how the qualification requirements of each of the positions included in the plan will be satisfied and how the positions identified for cross-training/cross- utilization will be backfilled. IAW PWS PARA 2.1.11.1.1- PARA 4.1- 4.2.

Sub-factor 2: Phase-In Plan When evaluating this sub-factor the Government will evaluate the approach to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements of the PWS and assess the offerors ability and methodology to meet or exceed the minimum requirements to ensure a transition from the contract award date to full operational status by the contractor. The Offeror shall identify those actions, plans, procedures, and timelines necessary to ensure a smooth transition to full operational status by the contract start date. The Phase-In Plan shall specifically identify how the Offeror will meet the objectives identified in accordance with the PWS paragraphs 3.2

Sub-factor 3: Management Plan:

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Management Plan by assessing the offeror’s approach to provide a logical and acceptable management concept that completely ensures all major functions (PWS Section 5.0. PWS 6.0 DELIVERABLES –TE 1 ANNEX D 2.0 and 3.0, TE 5 SPECIFIC CLEANING INSTRUCTIONS, TE 4 CDC & FITNESS FACILITIES, TE 7 Cleaning Products Approved Listing) will be accomplished with a high probability of success.

Element 1: Communication Plan: The Offeror shall identify their proposed communication method to disseminate information within the Offeror’s organization as well as to the Contracting Officer’s Representative. The Offeror’s Communication Plan shall address authority, supervision, in addition to changes to policies and procedures. The Communication shall address the Offeror’s approach to staying on schedule and meeting deadlines (PWS 6.0 DELIVERABLES).

Element 2: The Offeror’s Management Plan shall address how the Offeror plans to address labor plan and equipment schedule as required by the Performance Work Statement. IAW TE 1 ANNEX D 2.1.

Element 3: Organization Structure: The Offeror’s Management Plan shall provide an Organizational Chart with a detailed explanation of the Offeror’s organizational structure, including identification of the key positions and what authority those individuals possess. The Management Plan shall also address what parts of the organization are responsible for managing and accomplishing what work and where decision making authority lies within the organization. The Management Plan shall address what specific work the prime and subcontractors, if applicable, are responsible, for performing. IAW PWS 2.1.11.1.1.

Element 4: The Offeror shall identify their proposed for cleaning products In accordance with FAR 52.208-9 and TE 7 Cleaning Products Approved Listing.

Sub-factor 4: Quality Control Plan:

The Offeror shall provide its proposed approach to supporting the requirements of the Performance Work Statement. This section shall outline the Offeror’s Technical approach to complete the tasks in accordance with the Performance Work Statement. In explaining how performance will be accomplished, the Offeror shall specifically describe proposed schedules, processes, approaches, innovations and assumptions of support. The Offeror shall be responsible for the quality of products and services provided under this contract. The Offeror shall ensure that all contract requirements are accomplished within the maximum allowable degree of deviation indicated for that task. The Offeror shall identify methods for meeting performance standards.

Element 1: Identification of personnel responsible for quality control; No lead person or first line supervisor shall be considered a Quality Control Inspector.

Element 2: A description of the offeror's inspection system with types and frequencies of inspection to be conducted and personnel responsible for conducting inspections;

Element 3: A system for preventing the occurrence of deficiencies

Element 4: A description of how inspections will be documented with sample inspection records for each type of inspection to be conducted

The Mission Capability Factors will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

0. Factor 2 - Past Performance. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. Past performance areas of evaluation include: Business Relations, Quality of Service, Schedule, and Customer Satisfaction.

Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Contract requirements.

1. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

1. Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature of work, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three (3) years from the RFP release date; relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size and complexity.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

d) The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

1. Assigning Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the ratings defined Table 2 below.

Table 2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

1. Offerors 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

0. Factor 3 – Price. Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, complete and balanced.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of price evaluation, the government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option (See FAR Clause 52.217-9). Offerors are not required to enter a price for the six-month period.

Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices

Definitions.

Reasonableness. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Completeness/Accuracy. The offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation.”