1

Evaluation Procedures

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection 

Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 

to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to 

award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the 

Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that 

it will best meet the requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the 

Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the 

decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) 

reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or 

superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price

difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s 

evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. The tradeoff process, by its 

nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection 

process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all 

solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, 

technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results 

of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below. Contract terms and conditions consistent with 

customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored 

terms and conditions specified in the solicitation.

The Government intends to hold discussions, but reserves the right to award without discussions 

if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 

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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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. 

2. Factors and Subfactors and Relative Importance.

A. A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The 

Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Quality Control

Subfactor 2: Product Management
2

Factor 2: Management

Subfactor 1: Order Fulfillment

Subfactor 2: Risk Management

Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

Factor 3: Past Performance

 

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan

Factor 5: Price

Scenario Based Responses – will be evaluated under Technical Subfactors, Quality Control and 

Product Management and Management Subfactor, Order Fulfillment. 

Relative Importance of Each Factor and Subfactor. The evaluation factors in the tradeoff 

decision are technical, management, past performance, Small Business Participation Plan, and 

price. Technical, Management, Small Business Participation and past performance are weighted 

equally and when combined, are significantly more important than price factors.

Proposal Evaluation. 

The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows: Each offeror’s proposal shall be 

evaluated based on the factors/subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, 

compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) and Product 

Item Descriptions (PID), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those 

requirements and their associated risks. The technical and management proposals must address 

each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies 

risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate 

the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the 

offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. If any 

subfactor is rated as unacceptable, the overall factor will be rated as unacceptable.

B. Technical Evaluation:

Subfactor 1: Quality Control: The proposal shall be evaluated and rated based on the 

methodology for maintaining shelf life/stock rotation plans or testing plans to ensure compliance 

with product quality and control standards established in the SOW. The proposal shall describe 

in detail:

• Issues regarding product testing, such as lot acceptance testing, shelf-life 

recertification, production lot testing, or first article testing 

• Procedures used for inspections for product and end item packaging / marking

• Actions that are required to address spills, management of actions taken to correct 

and report spills

• Appropriate preventative actions that may be employed to protect the inventory. 
3

• Process for management of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) repository and the 

associated tracking of the items to each delivery order. 

• Specific compliances to required ISO 9001 or equivalent will be verified by 

providing certification or appropriate documents demonstrating compliance with 

required standards for the offeror and all affected subcontractors. 

• Describe effective measures for Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) items identified 

in this population, that demonstrates compliance with federal, state and local laws 

and regulations

• Scenario Based Response: Your response to the Scenario Based Question #1 will 

be evaluated as part of this subfactor and rated as part of the evaluation of this 

subfactor. 

Subfactor 2: Product Management: The proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s 

ability to support the Government’s technical requirements in the PIDs and Commercial Item 

Descriptions (CID). Offeror must demonstrate a capability to:

• Identify additional or new sources 

• Conduct quality testing and reporting technical documentation to the government 

in support of proposed product changes

• Explain the process for preparing products for shipment and the compliance with 

the applicable federal, state, and local requirements

• Identify the plan and actions that will be taken to address product deficiencies and 

discrepancies

• Provide accurate, compliant SDS and Hazardous Warning Labels (HWL) for all 

products identified in the Active NIIN / Schedule of Supplies (Attach. 2) and the 

Inactive NIINs (Attach. 3). This submittal must demonstrate the offeror’s overall 

understanding of the requirement for a complete data submittal.

• Provide adequate commercial warranty that is consistent for all items. This 

warranty must outline all warranty provisions and will be evaluated to insure that 

overseas shipments will be covered until supplies are received at their final 

destination. CONUS items will be warranted for a minimum of 90 days from 

receipt.

• Scenario Based Response: Your response to the Scenario Based Question #2 will 

be evaluated as part of this subfactor and rated as part of the evaluation of this 

subfactor.

C. Management

Subfactor 1: Order Fulfillment: Offeror shall address the process of Electronic Data 

Interchange (EDI) order processing from receipt of government order to complete fulfillment to 

include all inventory under control of the contractor. Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the 

following:

• All actions described must consider the established Time Definite Delivery 

(TDD) requirements of the SOW. 

• Describe the contract delivery order tracking system. 
4

• Description of actions will provide detail on the specific packaging, repackaging, 

marking, and shipment information. 

• Specific detail for all of the various forms of transportation that will be employed 

to supports shipments for this contract. 

• Provide actions that identify and correct misdirected shipments. 

• Support for the approved property management plan that addresses control of 

Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI). 

• Provide action plan for addressing customer complaints. 

• Identify the specific differences in support for domestic versus overseas 

shipments. 

• Scenario Based Response: Your response to the Scenario Based Question #3 will 

be evaluated as part of this subfactor and rated as part of the evaluation of this 

subfactor. 

Subfactor 2: Risk Management: Offeror shall address a comprehensive approach to 

the total program addressing all aspects of the supply chain. The offeror’s proposal shall

demonstrate the following: 

• Identify and address specific risks that may impact this program, including 

implementation and long-term management

• Provide detail regarding subcontractor and vendor management that encompasses 

the entire population of active NIINS (Attach. 2) and inactive items (Attach. 3)

• Ability to manage and address all issues associated with subcontractor 

management, item shipping and handling, ensuring compliance to TDD standards

• Ability to manage the specific hazardous material characteristics for these 

products. 

• Demonstrate the ability to identify specific quantitative and qualitative risks and 

effective mitigation strategies that demonstrate the clear ability to ensure 

uninterrupted performance at the required level of support

 

Subfactor 3: Transition plan: The offeror shall provide all elements of transition from 

contract award through Initial Operational Capability (IOC) to Full Operational Capability 

(FOC). The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate the following:

• Dated milestones must be identified for each step of the plan. 

• Identify specific government actions that may be required to support 

implementation. 

• Any actions that will cause a delay and impact the successful FOC must be clearly 

identified. 

Combined Ratings:

• Combined Technical / Risk Rating: The offeror’s technical solutions will be 

rated concurrently with the risk associated with its approach. The combined 

technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the 
5

strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. 

Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk 

ratings listed in Table 1 below. Whenever strength is identified as part of the 

rating, an assessment of whether it would likely cause an impact to schedule, cost 

or performance will be included. If any subfactor is determined to be 

unacceptable, the overall factor rating will be unacceptable. 

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.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more 

deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable. 
6

• Management / Risk: The Management evaluation will be rated based on the 

offeror’s written proposal. The evaluation team will pay particular attention the 

organizational capability of the offeror in performing the requirements, the 

transition plan in performing the requirements, and the mitigation of risk in 

performing the requirements. The offeror’s management solutions will be rated in 

accordance with Table 1 above. 

D. Factor 3: Past Performance. The past performance assessment will assess the confidence 

in the offerors / critical subcontractors to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on 

the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as 

any subcontractor providing support for technical compliance which represents a significant outsourced capability such as HAZMAT testing capability, source of packaging / repackaging, or 

warehouse or storage facilities. Material sources of supply are not considered critical 

subcontractors. 

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/ the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of 

contract performance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including price

and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, 

context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. More 

recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment 

than less recent and less relevant performance. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is 

defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the closing

date of this solicitation. The Government will perform an independent determination of 

relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of 

the recent four (4) submitted contracts for the offeror and two (2) submitted contracts for each 

identified critical subcontractor. For the Offeror, no more than four (4) contracts should be 

submitted for consideration. For each identified critical subcontractor, no more than two (2) 

contracts should be submitted for consideration. In both cases, any more will not be evaluated. 

If additional contracts are submitted, they will be evaluated in order of submission up to the 

required number. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The 

following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in the offeror’s 

Volume 5 of its proposal:

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.
7

Very Relevant – Has performed commercial or government logistics or supply chain 

management contracts that have supported processing individual transactions in excess of 8,000 

per month; includes hazardous materials handling, packaging or repackaging requirements; 

supports multiple transportation modes to include those bound for overseas final delivery; 

compliance with federal, state, and local regulations including hazardous or regulated materials; 

has experience in handling / supporting at least 3 of the Federal Stock Classes (FSC) included in 

this contract to include FSC 9150; experience managing and maintaining a diverse vendor base 

exceeding 250 sources.

Relevant – Has performed commercial or government logistics or supply chain management 

contracts that have supported processing individual transactions in excess of 5,000 per month; 

packaging or repackaging requirements; supports multiple transportation modes; compliance 

with federal, state, and local regulations including hazardous or regulated materials; has 

experience in handling / supporting at least 2 of the FSCs included in this contract; experience 

managing and maintaining a diverse vendor base exceeding 100 sources.

Somewhat Relevant - Has performed commercial or government logistics or supply chain 

management contracts that have supported processing individual transactions in excess of 1,000 

per month; supports multiple transportation modes; compliance with federal, state, and local 

regulations including hazardous or regulated materials; has experience in handling / supporting at 

least 1 of the FSCs included in this contract; experience managing and maintaining a diverse 

vendor base exceeding 50 sources.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and 

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. 

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only 

includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort, but also the logistical 

and programmatic considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, 

dollar values, type and complexity of products supported. When assigning a relevancy rating to 

a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the 

programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these 

aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to 

that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same 

technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and 

magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

In assessing past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but 

not limited to:

(i) The Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information 

provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance 

information shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and 

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope 

and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.
8

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System 

(PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources 

such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or 

commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and 

relevant.

(ii) Offerors/critical subcontractors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past 

performance information if the offeror or critical subcontractor has not had a previous 

opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that 

corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues 

including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or 

effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work 

record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(iii) For offerors/critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less 

than three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts 

or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past 

performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s 

performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted 

contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the 

instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the 

issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance 

information regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions, or corporate 

management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume 

demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the 

instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities 

demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant 

effort.

(iv) The Government shall consider an offeror’s/ critical subcontractor’s contracts in the 

aggregate should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an 

offeror’s four (4) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant 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 

reflect greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected 

in the confidence assessment. A critical subcontractor’s two (2) contracts may by definition 

represent only a rating less than very relevant 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 reflect greater magnitude of complexities and/or 

magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. The Government 

may consider a critical subcontractor’s submitted contracts in the aggregate in this same manner 

if their submitted efforts were performed concurrently (in part or in whole). Then considering 

the offeror’s /critical subcontractor’s respective role and their work in aggregate as well as the 

critical subcontractor(s) role and their work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be 

assigned for the team as a whole.
9

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one 

confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be 

assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are 

excerpted below.

Offerors without a record of past performance, or for whom information is so sparse that no 

confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or 

unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. 

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the 

Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

E. Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation Approach:

All Offerors (both small and large businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed 

participation of U.S small businesses in the performance of the acquisition (as Small Business 

prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives established herein. 

The Government will evaluate:

The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals;

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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. 
10

• The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments 

are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

• The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

• The realism of the proposal;

• Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business 

Subcontracting Plan; and

• The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

The DoD's small business prime goals are provided for consideration in the development of individual 

Offeror goals: Small Business: 21.60% of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business: 5%

of the total contract value; Women-Owned Small Business: 5% of the total contract value; Historically 

Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Business: 3% of the total contract value; Service Disabled

Veteran Owned Small Business: 3% of the total contract value. 

Once the final goals are negotiated and accepted by the government it will be incorporated into 

the contract as the Offeror requirement for this acquisition. 

The Government will rate the offerors Small Business Participation Factor proposal using Table 

1 above. 

F. Factor 5: Price. The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, 

Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). 

i. Reasonableness. Adequate price competition is expected to support the 

determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be utilized to 

further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not 

obtained the contracting officer will comply with DFARS 215.371. 

ii. Balance. Unbalanced pricing is discussed in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced 

pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or 

more contract line items is significantly overstated or underestimated as indicated 

by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to 

determine whether unbalanced separately priced line items exist. Offers that are 

determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an 

unacceptable risk to the Government.

iii. Total Evaluated Price. A TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only 

and used to assist in determining the best value to the Government. Proposals 

shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for 

items identified for pricing which are applicable to the basic requirements and 

other price-related issues. The TEP shall include all prices associated with 

providing the final items to the Government. The TEP will be calculated as the 

sum of the following: 

• All items to be priced in Attachments 2 of the RFP, at the quantities stated. 
11

• The total material price will be calculated by multiplying proposed price times 

estimated annual demand times 9. The years will be totaled to arrive at a 9-

year material contract value. 

• Throughput Fee will be identified by the Contractor in its Material Price 

proposal as a percentage of the material price and will be evaluated as part of 

the total Material NSN Pricing. 

• Management Fee will be evaluated by adding the fee offered for each year to 

arrive at a ten-year value. 

• Transition fee—the one year transition fee will be included in the TEP. 

• Offerors are advised that the evaluation of item prices shall not obligate the 

Government to award each item.