1.6.3 Technical Evaluation Factors - Roof Repair_ 07.08.26_v1.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Repair, restore, and waterproof the roof of the office building at Naval Weapons Station Earle
- Solicitation number
- 70FBR226Q00000020
About this file
This is a Technical Evaluation Factors document for a roof repair and resealing solicitation issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for work at Naval Weapons Station Earle in Colts Neck, New Jersey. The procurement is being conducted under FAR Subpart 13.5 as a firm fixed-price, best value contract where award will not necessarily go to the lowest bidder. Evaluation will be based on three factors in descending order of importance: Technical Specifications (ability to demonstrate technical sufficiency and develop a comprehensive work plan addressing scope, complexity, performance requirements, and deliverables); Past Performance (three relevant references from services performed within the past five years, including project details, contract information, period of performance, and client contact information); and Price (evaluated for reasonableness through comparison with other proposals). Non-price factors combined are slightly more important than price, allowing for technical/price tradeoffs.
Vendors will receive ratings of Outstanding, Excellent, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unacceptable, or Neutral based on their proposal quality and risk assessment. FEMA reserves the right to supplement vendor-submitted past performance information with CPARS or PPIRS ratings from prior government work. Site visits are scheduled for July 28, 2026, at 10 a.m. EST at Building C54, and all questions must be submitted by July 31, 2026, at 5 p.m. EST to kendall.feaster@fema.dhs.gov. Attendees must be U.S. citizens, English-speaking, possess Real ID, and have a clean background check, with prior confirmation required via email.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_70FBR226Q00000020.pdf | ||
| SECNAV 5512_New_31MAY24.pdf | ||
| 1.10.1 Wage Determination.pdf | ||
| 1.1.3 SOO - Roof repair (Office) v3_07.07.26.docx | DOCX document |
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 Requirement: Roof Repair/resealing Dated: 07/08/2026 The Government will award a firm fixed-price contract 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.
Price should always be fair, reasonable, and realistic. Technical/price tradeoff where other evaluation factors, when combined, outweigh price in importance; however, if other factors are closer to even, then price becomes the determining factor.
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 technical sufficiency in their proposed technical and management approach to perform and support the requirements of the Statement of Objectives (SOO). 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 an identification of potential difficulties in conducting the work with practical suggestions for overcoming these difficulties.
Vendors will be evaluated on their ability to develop a work plan in response to the SOO. Vendors must demonstrate an understanding of ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
· Scope of technical requirements
· Complexity of technical requirements
· Performance requirements & objectives
· Pertinent work tasks & deliverables
Factor 2: Past Performance Provide past performance information for services directly related and relevant to the services to be performed under the SOO. To be considered relevant, the services must have been performed within the past five years. Include three references consisting of ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
· Project title/description
· Role (Prime/Subcontractor)
· Contract number
· Dollar value & contract type
· Period of performance
· Agency or company for which the work was performed
· Summary of the work products/services
· Name/contact information of client point of contact
FEMA reserves the right to utilize past performance information other than the information submitted with the quotations received in conducting the evaluation. This may be a favorable CPARS or PPIRS rating. However, if these are utilized and a Vendor does not have any ratings since they have not done business with the government, they will receive a neutral rating in the evaluation later that cannot be used against them.
Factor 3: 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 |
| 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. |
| Neutral |
| Performance risk is unknown; the offeror lacks a record of relevant past performance or past performance information is not available; the offeror cannot be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance; there is no clear indicator of a high or low probability of success in meeting the Government’s requirements. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .