Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_13MAY15.doc

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. This solicitation is for a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract. The Government intends to award a single contract to a qualified Small Business Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to all the RFP's requirements and is judged to represent the Best Value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation scheme set out in this solicitation. The Best Value is the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, and consistent with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria. Please note that the evaluation scheme for this solicitation is unique and is not purely a tradeoff analysis (FAR 15.101-1) or a purely Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable approach (FAR 15.101-2). Rather, the evaluation scheme is a “combination” of these two approaches, which is expressly allowed under FAR 15.101. Under the evaluation scheme outlined below, it is possible that the award may be made to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror; where the Contracting Officer determines that the merits of the non-price factors of the higher-priced offeror is worth the price premium and attains the best value for the Government.

1.2. To arrive at a Best Value decision this acquisition will utilize the FAR Part 15.101-1 tradeoff process unless the lowest priced offeror is also deemed to be the highest rated in terms of non-price evaluation criteria. If the lowest priced offeror is also the highest rated in terms of non-Price Factors, no tradeoff is necessary. Further, there is no tradeoff necessary between any offer that is lower priced and higher rated in terms of non-Price Factors with respect to any other offers that are higher priced and lower rated for the non-Price Factors. While the Government and the Source Selection Authority will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

1.3. The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection procedures. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria listed in “Evaluation Factors for Award.” Noncompliance with the RFP requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical ability, past performance and/or pricing and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

1.4. The Contracting Officer will conduct a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators. Failure to provide a complete proposal, all 2 Volumes, may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award. Failure to address any factor Technical, Past Performance or Price or any technical subfactor shall be grounds for elimination from evaluation and consideration for award.

1.5. Offerors must ensure that no pricing information is displayed in Volume 2, Technical and Past Performance Proposal.

1.6. Although the assessment of Past Performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9, Past Performance information obtained herein will be used during the Government’s responsibility determination. The Government also reserves the right to obtain additional information solely for the purpose of making a responsibility determination from all offerors after receipt of proposals. Requests for responsibility information do not constitute discussions.

1.7. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer, in his/her sole discretion, later determines them to be necessary or appropriate. Further, the Government reserves the right to create or not to create a competitive range. 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.

1.8. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interest.

1.9. ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (if applicable e.g., subcontractors, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.1. The evaluation factors are Technical Capability, Past/Present Performance and Price. The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows: Technical and Past Performance are approximately equal to each other and when combined, are approximately equal to the Price Factor. The evaluation process will follow a sequence in which the Technical will be evaluated first, the Price factor will be evaluated second and the Past Performance Factor will be evaluated third (and last). The Technical Factor will be evaluated first and will result in an offer being rated as “Acceptable” or”Unacceptable.” If an offeror is deemed to be unacceptable, it will be set aside and will not continue further in this competition. If the Price is determined to be reasonable and realistic, the offer will continue in the competition for a Past Performance Factor evaluation. Conversely, if the price proposal is deemed “unreasonable,” or “unrealistic,” it will not continue further in this competition.

2.2. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: Technical Capability will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. An offeror shall obtain an “Acceptable” rating to continue further in the competition. Offerors who are deemed to merit an “Unacceptable” rating in the Technical Capability Factor will be removed from further consideration for award.

2.2.1. To be deemed “Acceptable” the proposal must demonstrate the ability to perform the medical and dental service requirements in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (Section C) as well as an understanding of the requirements listed therein.

2.2.2. Technical Capability Ratings

ACCEPTABLE: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.3. PRICE EVALUATION

2.3.1. The purpose of the price/cost evaluation is to determine whether an offeror's proposed prices/costs for the project are reasonable and realistic in relation to the solicitation requirements and demonstrates the offeror understands the proposal requirements.

2.3.2. The Government reserves the right to obtain additional information concerning the price (cost) as necessary to obtain a better understanding of the price proposed. No proposal revisions will be allowed under these conditions. Request for such information is for clarification purposes only. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions.

2.3.3. The Government may conduct a price/cost evaluation of each offeror's proposal to determine whether or not each proposal complies with the stated criteria: "Reasonableness" and “Realism". Those proposals evaluated as not satisfying all of the price/cost criteria may be eliminated from further consideration unless the Contracting Officer determines:

2.3.3.1. A minor clerical error has occurred, in which case the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the "clarifications" process or

2.3.3.2. The Contracting Officer in his/her sole discretion later determines discussions to be necessary or appropriate.

2.3.4. Reasonableness of an offeror's proposal is evaluated through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1) and (4). For cost (Price) to be reasonable, it must represent a cost (Price) that provides value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market and functional capabilities of the offeror.

2.3.5. Realism is evaluated by assessing the compatibility of proposed costs with proposal scope and effort. For cost (Price) to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort if the offeror operates with reasonable economy and efficiency. Proposals unrealistically low in price, when compared to the Government estimate, and/or market conditions evidenced by other competitive proposals received, may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in proposal rejection without discussion. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between proposed performance and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches or conditions are the basis for an unbalanced/inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of cost (Price) realism rests solely with the offeror.

2.3.6. Discounts: Prompt payment discounts will not be considered in the evaluation of offers. However, any offered discount will form part of the award, and will be taken if payment is made within the discount period indicated in the offer by the offeror. As an alternative to offering a prompt payment discount in conjunction with the offer, offerors awarded contracts may include prompt payment discounts on individual invoices.

2.3.7. Prices will be evaluated for affordability. Proposed prices that exceed funding limitations for this project may be deemed unaffordable and removed from consideration for award.

2.4. PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

2.4.1. The Government will evaluate the Past/Present Performance of offers receiving an “Acceptable” Technical Capability rating starting with the lowest reasonable and realistic price offered until an offeror is rated “Substantial Confidence,” which is the best Past/Present Performance rating possible under the terms of the evaluation criteria in this solicitation. If the lowest (reasonable and realistic) price is deemed by the Government to merit a “Substantial Confidence” in Past Performance there will be no tradeoff and that offeror will be selected for award. If the lowest price offeror is not deemed to merit a “Substantial Confidence” the Government will continue to evaluate the Past Performance of offers in price order until an offeror is rated “Substantial Confidence.” By using this method it is possible (and likely) that some offerors’ Past/Present Performance will not be evaluated. At this point, the evaluation is complete and the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated best value assessment using the tradeoff process as described at FAR 15.101-1 of the evaluated offerors. If there are no “Substantial Confidence” ratings assigned for any of the offerors, the Government will then use a standard tradeoff process as described at FAR 15.101-1 to arrive at the offeror representing the best value in this competition.

The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consider such things as an offeror's business practices, customer relationship, ability to successfully perform as proposed, and other considerations as described in Past/Present Performance Sub-factors, elements and other considerations. Past/Present Performance includes current/on-going (present) performance. In assessing performance confidence, the evaluator may: (1) evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the offeror's references; (2) use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources; from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; (3) interviews with Program/Project Managers, Contracting Officers or rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; (4) the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire; and (5) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contract and the offeror's corrective actions. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

2.4.2. The evaluation may take into account Past/Present Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. The evaluation will also consider information provided relative to corrective actions taken to resolve problems on past or existing, contracts.

2.4.3. An offeror with no relevant Past/Present Performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors provided the offeror clearly states in the proposal that the information provided about predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors is for the purposes of enhancing the offerors past performance proposal. These ratings may have the same weight as the ratings of the proposing company. The weight that will be afforded for this type of past performance is within the sole discretion of the Government. If such information is not applicable (i.e., the offeror does not have a predecessor company, key personnel or subcontractors with relevant experience), the offeror shall be evaluated as “Unknown Confidence” (Neutral). However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant Past/Present Performance history, while rated “Unknown Confidence” (Neutral) in Past Performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposal of other offerors.

2.4.4. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, e.g., the relevance of an offeror's past/present performance information and adverse past/present performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors.

2.5. Currency, Trends and Relevancy: Evaluators will consider the performance information for currency, relevancy as well as trends in the performance as explained further below.

2.5.1. “Current” means performance occurring within the last five (5) years for the period beginning five years prior to the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period.

2.5.2. “Trends” in performance will be considered and may include the following but not limited to: more current performance having greater weight than older performance; patterns or trends in performance issues as relates to, but not limited to, types of projects, work, personnel and similar elements; and does performance show a pattern of improvement or decline over time?

2.5.3. In assessing “relevancy”, the Government may evaluate an offeror's past performance for similarity of the medical/dental services provided; size; project scope; cost magnitude, and complexity of work performed to those required for the proposed effort. The location at which work was performed to the location(s) at which work will be performed may also be considered. Relevancy will affect an offeror’s overall Past Performance rating.

2.5.3.1. The Government may consider an offeror’s previous contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an offeror’s performance on three contracts may, by definition, represent only a somewhat relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a relevant or very relevant effort.

2.5.4. Considering all the elements listed above, the following adjectival ratings and descriptions will be used to evaluate the relevancy weight.

2.5.4.1. VERY RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

2.5.4.3. SOMEWHAT RELEVANT- Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.5.4.4. NOT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.5.4.5. Offerors who otherwise have satisfactory performance on previous medical/dental projects may be rated “Unknown Confidence” (Neutral) if those projects are not considered relevant to the proposed acquisition and relevancy cannot be obtained through the evaluation of key personnel and/or subcontractors. Projects that are not current will not be considered in the evaluation.

2.6. Past Performance Sub-factors. There are six (6) sub-factors. Of these six, quality control, timely performance and management effectiveness are the most significant subfactors and are of equal value and when combined, are significantly more important than the other three subfactors. The other three subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. Evaluation will be at the factor level.

· Quality Control

· Timely Performance

· Management Effectiveness

· Compliance with Safety Standards

· Compliance with Federal laws and regulations

· Compliance with utilization of small business concerns requirements

2.7. The elements that may be considered under each subfactor are described below:

2.7.1. Quality Control (QC): Evaluators may consider such things as: Quality of case management and customer services provided; Adequacy of the Contractor QC; Identification/correction of deficient work in a timely manner; Suggested solutions and displayed initiative to implement solutions; Adequacy of medical case management services/supplies/personnel provided; Use of specified materials/equipment.

2.7.2. Timely Performance: Evaluators may consider such things as: Met established deadlines and/or time limitations for requested medical case management services; Timely submission of documents/reports/results/etc.; Resolved delays in an expeditious manner; Identification/correction of deficient work in a timely manner; Completed all contract work in a timely manner; Left no major discrepancies; Timely submission of required documents/information, e.g., MEDPROS, DENCLASS.

2.7.3. Management Effectiveness: Evaluators may consider such things as:

2.7.3.1. General Business Practices, including, but not limited to: Contractor provided experienced managers, and supervisors with the ability needed to meet contract requirements; Hired experienced subcontractors; Paid subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner; The contractor cooperated to resolve problems, attending meetings (as applicable) and maintained communication to assure satisfactory resolution;

2.7.3.2. Pricing, including, but not limited to: The contractor submitted proposals that accurately represented the work required; The contractor's supporting price/cost information for modifications were accurate, complete and reasonable (not over inflated or under estimated); Provided well-substantiated pricing data for task orders;

2.7.3.3. Event Management/Superintendent, including, but not limited to: Event manager ensured compliance to contract requirements & safety regulations; Event manager acted promptly to resolve problems and ensure work quality; Event manager had sufficient authority to make decisions or take actions during project performance; Event manager consistently present on site when work was performed.

2.7.4. Compliance with Safety Standards: Evaluators may consider such things as: Adequacy of implementation of safety plan; Acceptable safety history.

2.7.5. Compliance with Federal laws and regulations: Evaluators may consider such things as: Compliance with laws and regulations with specific attention to: required licensing/certifications; OSHA; AR 40-501 Standards of Medical Fitness, dated 4 August 2011; AR 40-35 Dental Readiness & Community Oral Health Protection, dated 2 August 2004; Compliance with the Service Contract Act of 1965; Compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws.

2.7.6. Compliance with Small Business Concerns Requirements: (Applicable to all offerors) Generally, offeror demonstrated adequate compliance with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns”. Past performance included adequate utilization of small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, HUBZone small businesses, women-owned small businesses, and veteran owned and service disabled veteran owned small businesses, on prior Government contracts.

2.8. Other Past Performance Considerations: Evaluators may also consider the following issues when evaluating an offeror's Past Performance. These issues may help provide additional guidance in deciding a descriptive performance confidence assessment (e.g., "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence") for a specific offeror if there is a question as to which adjective is most appropriate.

2.8.1. Professional/Industry Awards

2.8.2. Letters of appreciation, recognition or commendation, etc., received on behalf of a customer may be submitted. The Government will consider up to five (5) such documents.

2.8.3. Unique skills and accomplishments;

2.8.4. Assessment of liquidated damages (frequency, circumstances, severity of problem, etc.)

2.8.5. Contractor Desirability: Based on the contractor's overall performance, how willingly would a customer re-hire the offeror.

2.9. The following ratings and related definitions will be used to define the performance confidence assessment. Based on the evaluation results, the evaluators will assign the Past Performance factor one of the ratings as defined below.

2.9.1. 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.

2.9.2. 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.

2.9.3. 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.

2.9.4. 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.

2.9.5. 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.

3. AWARD and DEBRIEFINGS

3.3. Award: A written award or acceptance of offer mailed, or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer shall be deemed to result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

3.4. Debriefings

3.4.1. Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.505.

3.4.2. After award, unsuccessful offerors may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.506.

3.4.2.1. Written requests for debriefing will be accepted by certified mail only. Submitted means delivered to the Contracting Officer at the location indicated on the SF 1449 for receipt of proposals.

End of Section M