Loren Data's SAM Daily™

fbodaily.com
Home Today's SAM Search Archives Numbered Notes CBD Archives Subscribe
FBO DAILY - FEDBIZOPPS ISSUE OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2018 FBO #6147
AWARD

R -- Technical, Logistics, & Administrative Support Services

Notice Date
9/20/2018
 
Notice Type
Award Notice
 
NAICS
541611 — Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services
 
Contracting Office
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Office of Acquisitions, Office of Management, 530 Davis Drive, Durham, North Carolina, 27713, United States
 
ZIP Code
27713
 
Solicitation Number
NIHES201800005
 
Point of Contact
Onyenauche Washington, Phone: (984) 287-3064
 
E-Mail Address
uche.washington@nih.gov
(uche.washington@nih.gov)
 
Small Business Set-Aside
Total Small Business
 
Award Number
(HHSN273201800006I)(HHSN273201800007I)
 
Award Date
9/17/2018
 
Awardee
MDB Incorporated & Lux Consulting Group, Incorporated, MDB, INC.<br />, DUNS: 042441001 CAGE Code: 3N2A9<br />, 1101 CONNECTICUT AVE NW STE 550<br />, WASHINGTON, DC, 20036-2626,<br />, UNITED STATES<br />, <br />, LUX CONSULTING GROUP, INC. <br />, DUNS: 189408565 CAGE Code: 37ED7<br />, 8403 COLESVILLE RD STE 1100<br />, SILVER SPRING, MD, 20910-6346 ,<br />, UNITED STATES, ,, United States
 
Award Amount
$966,059.14
 
Line Number
00001
 
Description
September 20, 2018: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 13.106-3(d) only requires the agency to furnish a supplier a brief explanation of the basis for the contract award decision, not an actual "debriefing" as would be required under FAR 15.506. Since award was based on factors other than price alone, a brief explanation of the basis for the contract award decision is provided below: This acquisition was conducted IAW FAR Part 13 versus FAR Part 15. The RFQ announced that although the technical capability factor was of paramount consideration in the award of the contract(s), past performance and price were also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, were significantly more important than price. The Government utilized a tradeoff approach to determine the Quoters who provided the best value to the Government. In addition to this, the RFQ announced that awards were contemplated without discussions. As such, a competitive range was not established nor were negotiations/discussions held during the evaluation phase of this procurement. Furthermore, the RFQ stated that, "The Government would not award a contract to any Quoter with an unacceptable rating or a deficiency in ANY factor or sub factor". Therefore, submissions determined to be technically unacceptable due to existing deficiencies could not be considered for contract award. Since the RFQ stated that, "A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each sub factor. Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award', those who received a marginal rating in any sub factor(s) were also not considered for award. Additionally, since the Government considered Mission Capability to be of paramount importance, the submissions rated as technically acceptable were not considered superior when compared to those rated technically good and outstanding; technically acceptably rated submissions didn't contain any significant strengths. Following this, the Government utilized a tradeoff approach to determine the Quoters who provided the best value to the Government. For award # 1, during the trade off, the selection of MDB Incorporated came down to the superiority of their mission capability and past performance submissions, when combined and their fair and reasonable price. It would have been of no benefit to the Government to accept any of the other two (2) higher priced quotes that were not technically superior when compared to MDB's submission. For award # 2, the selection of Lux Consulting Group, Incorporated came down to price; Lux's price was determined to be fair and reasonable. When mission capability and past performance were combined, the two (2) in the tradeoff were equally rated. As such, it would have been of no benefit to the Government to accept a higher priced quote that was equally rated considering mission capability and past performance combined.
 
Web Link
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/HHS/NIH/NIEHS/NIHES201800005/listing.html)
 
Place of Performance
Address: See Statement of Work (SOW) for place of performance, Reasearch Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709, United States
Zip Code: 27709
 
Record
SN05097936-W 20180922/180920230943-e227c9136e4c585b08ed0e8e6b03e839 (fbodaily.com)
 
Source
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |
ECGrid: EDI VAN Interconnect ECGridOS: EDI Web Services Interconnect API Government Data Publications CBDDisk Subscribers
 Privacy Policy  Jenny in Wanderland!  © 1994-2024, Loren Data Corp.