1.6.3 Technical Evaluation Factors Janitorial Services.docx
DOCX document 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AMENDMENT 1 - Q&A Janitorial services for FEMA Region 2 at Naval Weapons Station Earle (NWSE)
- Solicitation number
- 70FBR226Q00000002
About this file
This document is a Technical Evaluation Factors document for a janitorial services contract with FEMA Region 2 at Naval Weapons Station Earle (NWSE). The solicitation will award a fixed-price purchase order using a best value approach, evaluating proposals based on three primary factors: Technical Specifications, Past Performance, and Price, with non-price factors being slightly more important than price. Vendors must demonstrate their management approach to meet Performance Work Statement requirements, including a quality control plan that shows ability to manage, monitor, and correct performance.
Key submission requirements include providing two past performance examples from contracts completed within the last three years, demonstrating similar service delivery. Site visits are scheduled for December 8th and 10th, 2025, at 11 AM EST, with strict attendance requirements including US citizenship, English proficiency, Real ID, and a clean background check. Vendors must submit email confirmations and complete a NAVSEC5512 form to attend. All questions are due by December 11th at 5 PM EST, and should be sent to kendall.feaster@fema.dhs.gov. The evaluation will use a rating scale from Outstanding to Unacceptable, assessing the vendor's ability to meet government requirements with varying degrees of risk.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SECNAV 5512_New_31MAY24.pdf | ||
| 1.1.3 Performance Work Statement - Janitorial Services NWSE Updated (004) FPO Approved.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1.10.1 Wage Determination.pdf | ||
| 2.2.1 Sol_70FBR226Q00000002.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Evaluation Factors The Government will award a fixed-price purchase order resulting from this solicitation to the Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. This procurement is being conducted in accordance with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13.5. The acquisition will be a best value contract. Offerors are cautioned that award(s) may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced proposal.
The Government will evaluate proposal submissions based on the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:
Factor 1 – Technical Specifications Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price All non-price factors, when combined, are slightly more important than price.
Factor 1: Technical Specifications Vendors will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate in their proposed management approach to perform and support the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. This section of the vendor’s proposal shall address information regarding how the proposal logistical support task areas will be performed, the various resources that will be used to facilitate performance, and the identification of potential difficulties in conducting the work with practical suggestions for overcoming these difficulties.
The technical evaluation will consider the merits of the proposed quality control plan. Consideration will be given to how well the quality control plan demonstrates the offeror’s ability to present and execute a quality control plan, whereby the contractor manages and monitors the process and takes the appropriate corrective action to correct performance to meet program objectives. Consideration will be given to how well the plan demonstrates that the offeror will provide adequate quality control for all requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).
Consideration will be given to how well the quality control plan discusses the offeror’s policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the contract requirements and its methods of documenting and enforcing quality control procedures of both the prime contractor and subcontractors.
Factor 3: Past Performance Offerors shall provide two (2) past performance examples on recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar requirements to the services under the SOW. Past performance must be from contracts completed within the last three (3) years or from contracts that are currently in progress. The provided past performance examples should demonstrate performance in delivering similar services.
FEMA reserves the right to utilize past performance information other than the information submitted with the quotations received in conducting the evaluation such as CPARS.
Factor 4: Price The price proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness through comparison with other proposed prices and may include other price analysis techniques.
The price proposal will not be given a confidence rating, but unit prices and discounts will be evaluated to ensure prices are fair and reasonable.
| RATING |
| DESCRIPTION |
| Outstanding |
| Excellent in all respects; offers one or more significant strengths not offset by weaknesses; significantly exceeded performance or capability standards; performance areas assessed had very few minor issues or concerns; very good probability of success with overall very low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements |
| Very Good |
| High quality in most respects; offers one or more strengths not offset by weaknesses; exceeded some performance or capability standards; the performance areas assessed had few minor issues or concerns; good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements. |
| Satisfactory |
| Adequate quality, demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards; performance areas assessed contain minor issues or concerns; moderate degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements. |
| Marginal |
| Overall quality cannot be determined due to errors, omissions, or deficiencies; only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal performance; high degree of risk in successfully meeting the Government’s requirements. |
| Unacceptable |
| Quotation contains major errors, omissions, or deficiencies; fails to meet performance or capability standards; an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .