Section_M_-_Amended_Evaluation_Criteria_22_APR_19.docx

W91QF5-19-R-0009

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. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price Factor and 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 Section F Delivery 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. ). The Government will only evaluate the five lowest priced, responsive offers. Should any of these offers be found unacceptable, the next lowest priced offers will be evaluated.

0. Evaluation Criteria.

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

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Sub-factor 1: Staffing Plan Sub-factor 2: Phase-In Plan Sub-factor 3: Management Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Factor 1: Technical Capability: The Technical 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 Technical 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: Staffing Plan: The Offeror’s Staffing 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. The plan must demonstrate:

a. The staffing plan provides adequate staffing and includes appropriate labor categories and appropriate number of personnel proposed for successful performance of all PWS tasks. Offerors provide feasible methodology for successfully accomplishing the following: accommodating fluctuating workloads, minimizing personnel turnover, recruiting and retaining qualified and experienced personnel, cross-training and cross-utilization of personnel.

b. Narrative to demonstrate an understanding of the skills required to execute contract tasks, as well as, how they are to be implemented and utilized in contract performance in accordance with the PWS (including procedures to develop collection schedules, source separations, transporting and weighting refuse/recycle materials).

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.

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 will be accomplished with a high probability of success. The Offeror’s Management Plan must be complete, meet all PWS requirements, show a good understanding of the requirements, and must demonstrate:

a. The offeror’s plan to maintain or acquire the required equipment necessary to complete all requirements of the PWS is feasible, to include the additional containers that may be required during contract performance, and meets all PWS requirements.

b. The offeror’s plan to establish and operate a manned recycling area, to include marketing approach for recycle materials collected on Fort Lee must be included to show understanding of the Installation’s goal to adopt the Net Zero Waste approach.

c. The offeror described an adequate methodology to successfully generate and produce reports of outcomes associated with PWS.

d. The management plan demonstrates an organizational chart which identifies an appropriate management structure of key personnel, including a description of roles and responsibilities, likely to result in successful performance. Key personnel must meet all PWS requirements.

e. The offeror’s plan provides a good approach to ensuring all personnel possess and maintain the required certifications in accordance with PWS.

The Technical 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. An unacceptable rating for any sub-factor will result in an overall unacceptable for this factor.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

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. 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.”