SAMPLE SECTION M

(Technical Proposal Required)

M-XX BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD 1: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than 2, cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Note 1: Note that in commercial acquisition, this information will be included in FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Items.

Note 2: Choose one of these phrases to express the relative order of importance IAW FAR Part 15.

(As described in paragraph 5.0 Proposal Evaluation of this guide, determine which evaluation approach you will follow and then select the appropriate paragraphs below.)

(For Approach #1 – Evaluate Technical, Then Rank by Price, Assess Performance on all (or specified number))

A. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

1. System Block Diagram and System Description: System block diagram will be evaluated for completeness in conveying system configuration, including as a minimum MCR equipment, CCU, CCC, operators console, MCR console, FIDs, MUXs, and DTCs.

2. Equipment Description: Manufacturer's data sheets will be evaluated for each of the items shown on the block diagram and identified in the system description.

B. Price Evaluation. Next, the government shall rank all technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable offers by price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all (or a specified number of lowest priced offerors i.e., five to seven) based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. (Include the following sentence if limiting the assessment to a specified number of lowest priced offerors) The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment.

(For Approach #2 – Rank by Price, Evaluate Specified Number Technically, Assess Performance)

Note: As mentioned in the guide, the contracting officer must use discretion in selecting this number.

A. Price Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document for the offers evaluated under the following subparagraph B, the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

B. Technical Acceptability. Next, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the lowest priced offerors (usually, the lowest 5-7 proposals) on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

2. Equipment Description: Manufacturer's data sheets will be evaluated for each of the items shown on the block diagram and identified in the system description.

Note: As mentioned in the guide, the contracting officer must use discretion in selecting this number.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on the lowest priced offerors (usually the lowest five to seven) based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment.

(For Approach #3 – Evaluate Technical, Then Rank by Price, Assess Performance until Substantial Confidence proposal)

2. Equipment Description: Manufacturer's data sheets will be evaluated for each of the items shown on the block diagram and identified in the system description.

B. Price Evaluation. Next, the government shall rank all technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable offers by price, including any option prices if applicable. An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

(The next paragraphs are applicable to all approaches, except for paragraph G.)

D. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving _(insert type of requirement) that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror's ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in MP5315.3, Table 3. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will/will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

E. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

F. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

Note 1: Discussions must be held if any of the offerors in the competitive range have been determined to be "Reasonably Susceptible of being Made Acceptable" and that the competitive range consists only of those offerors whose past performance has been evaluated in Step 3.

(Use this paragraph if following Approach #1 or #2)

G. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

(Use this paragraph if following Approach #3)

G. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

H. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

I. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.