FARSmarterBids
Bid Smarter. Far Smarter.

DSCR

DSCR M10F: AUTOMATED BEST VALUE SYSTEM

M10F     52.215-9G05  AUTOMATED BEST VALUE MODEL                          DSCR (NOV 1996)

    (a)  Award.  The award against this solicitation shall be made based on a comparative 
assessment of offerors' prices and past quality and delivery performance.  Price and past 
performance are the primary evaluation factors.  The award may be made to other than the 
low-priced, technically acceptable responsible offeror.  For this award, price and 
performance factors will be evaluated equally unless a different order of precedence is 
indicated below:

   [  ]  Performance is of greater importance than price.

   [  ]  Price is of greater importance than performance.

For this award, the performance factor considers quality performance and delivery 
performance to be of equal value unless otherwise indicated below:

   [  ]  Quality performance is of greater importance than delivery performance.

   [  ]  Delivery performance is of greater importance than quality performance.

    (b)  The Automated Best Value Model (ABVM) Score.

         (1)  To evaluate each offeror's past performance, each offeror will be assigned 
an ABVM score based on the offeror's past performance.  ABVM scores are assigned for 
performance in each Federal Supply Class (FSC score) and for performance in all federal 
supply classes with the Defense Supply Center Richmond (Center score).  An offeror may 
have multiple FSC scores but will have only one Center score, which is an average of the 
offeror's FSC scores.  Scores shall be calculated monthly and remain in effect for the 
entire month.  The ABVM score, whether FSC or Center, is a combination of an offeror's 
delivery and quality scores.  The quality score will be comprised of validated contractor 
caused product and packaging nonconformances and negative lab tests during the rating 
period which does not include an offset period of the most recent 30 days.  The delivery 
score will be comprised of all lines reflected delinquent during the rating period which 
does not include an offset period of the most recent 60 days.  Delinquent lines are 
shipments that are reflected as not shipped and/or received in their entirety by the 
contract delivery date.  The 30 and 60 day offset periods are not grace periods but will 
be utilized for administration purposes.

         (2)  Negative quality and delivery data to be reflected in the ABVM score will 
be made available to offerors by the 15th day of the month via the DSCR Electronic 
Bulletin Board (EBB).  The score will be posted prior to use to provide offerors an 
opportunity to review and verify the negative performance data that is to be reflected in 
the ABVM score.  An offeror may challenge any negative data within the month that it is 
posted on the EBB to assure corrections are posted prior to calculation of the score.  
Challenges to performance data must be submitted to the ABVM Administrator along with 
evidence that substantiates the claim (e.g. bill of lading, insured or registered 
receipt, UPS manifest and pick-up record).  Challenges can be sent to:

             Defense Supply Center Richmond
             Attn:  DSCR-RZP (ABVM)
             8000 Jefferson-Davis Highway
             Richmond, VA  23297-5516

             PHONE  (804) 279-6881
             FAX    (804) 279-5042

         (3)  The challenge period for the performance data used to calculate the ABVM 
score for a particular month ends the day before the new score becomes effective.  Though 
offerors may challenge negative data at any time, it is to the offeror's advantage to 
challenge in a timely manner.  Challenged data that has been investigated and validated 
prior to the next monthly ABVM update will be reflected in the new score.  Challenges 
that are received before the end of the challenge period but are not resolved prior to 
the next monthly update will be flagged as challenged.  Once the challenge is received, 
the ABVM score is flagged and will remain flagged until the challenge is resolved.

         (4)  When there is a discrepancy between the offeror's challenged data and the 
Government's data, it becomes disputed data.  The Government will make every effort to 
resolve the discrepancy expeditiously.  However, the Government is the final authority 
for resolution of disputed data and its use in the source selection process, and may make 
an award decision despite the existence of an unresolved challenge.

    (c)  ABVM scores do not determine eligibility for award or technical acceptability.  
ABVM scores shall not be used to make determinations of responsibility.  ABVM scores 
shall only be used for comparison of past performance among offerors.

    (d)  Using the ABVM score for evaluation.  Offers will first be evaluated using the 
FSC score for the solicited FSC in effect at the time offers are evaluated.  An offeror 
without an FSC score for that particular FSC shall be evaluated on its Center score.  The 
contracting officer may consider the volume of business on which the FSC score is based 
as a measure of confidence in the score's indication of performance risk.  The 
contracting officer may choose to use the Center score if he or she lacks confidence in 
the FSC score.  The contracting officer also may use the Center score if the FSC scores 
among offerors are relatively equal.  An offeror with no performance history will not be 
scored but will be considered for award.  The lack of performance history is not grounds 
for disqualification for award but may cause the offeror to be considered less favorably 
than an offeror with favorable performance history.  Conversely, new offerors may be 
considered more favorably than scored offerors with poor performance history.  The 
contracting officer also may consider the need to expand the supplier base and the 
possibility of enhancing future competition when new offerors are present.

    (e)  Price.  The evaluated price will be used in conjunction with past performance 
data to determine the proposal that represents the best value to the Government. In 
making an award decision, the Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the offered 
price.

    (f)  General Basis for Award.  Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal 
conforms to the terms and conditions of the solicitation and which represents the best 
value to the Government.  In making the best value determination, the Government will 
make a comparative assessment of the proposals.  Where the offeror with the best 
performance history has not also offered the lowest price, the Government will determine 
the appropriate trade-off of price for past performance.  The following considerations 
may affect the trade-off determination:

     - Weapons system application/item criticality.
     - Delivery schedule/inventory status.
     - Historical delivery/quality problems.
     - Limitation of supply sources/industrial base concerns.
     - Benefits from obtaining new sources.