13-007860 TET PLAN MPB System Furniture.pdf

Furniture Technical Evaluation Plan MPB Renovation System & Freestanding Furniture AC-21-04689 (WO#13-007860)

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Award

1. Introduction. This document describes the process and procedures to be followed by the Technical Evaluation Team in evaluating and rating proposals. The evaluation team members and details of the evaluation and reporting are indicated below.

2. Technical Evaluation Team. The Technical Evaluation Team members are as follows:

Team Lead Karl Call AMP-400 MMAC Space Manager Team Member Elizabeth Probst AMK Customer Representative Tech Advisor Liliya Vasileva AMP-400 Space Design Specialist

3. Rating and Scoring Process.

Following the preliminary review by the contracting officer (CO), evaluations will proceed under the direction of the Technical Evaluation Team Lead (TETL).

a) Process. Team evaluations will consist of reviewing each offeror’s proposal to determine if the proposal is UNACCEPTABLE or ACCEPTABLE in meeting the minimum requirements specified.

It is the responsibility of each team member to evaluate each proposal independently. Each evaluator should note deficiencies, strengths or other comments as they go through the evaluation process. All initial evaluations will be in BLUE ink.

b) Rating Criteria. The evaluation will be based on the offeror’s submissions required in the specifications for Product/Project Team, Manufacturer’s Product Literature with Product Illustrations, Project Schedule, Typicals Drawings/Pans, Manufacturer’s Product Specifications, Manufacturer’s Warranty, Manufacturer’s Certificate of Availability and the proposed Product’s Environmental Aspects. Evaluators will evaluate in accordance with the “Evaluation Checklist”.

Each evaluator should become familiar with the requirements set forth in the specifications and utilize it for reference. An UNACCEPTABLE rating will be given for any item on the “Evaluation Checklist” that is not provided, incomplete or does not meet the minimum requirements. An ACCEPTABLE rating will be given for any item that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements.

4. Documentation and Reporting

a) Clarifications. During the evaluation process, the team may determine more information is required to complete the evaluation. In this case, the TETL may ask for clarifications through the

CO.

b) Discrepancies. After each member has completed their evaluation, the TETL will compile the individual results and review them for discrepancies. If the TETL discovers discrepancies between individual evaluations, the TETL will reconvene the Evaluation Team to address the issue(s). After discussions and reaching a consensus, team members will re-evaluate. The original evaluation forms will be changed with readable overstrikes in RED ink ONLY, dated and initialed by the team member that is changing or altering their rating.

c) Documentation. Evaluations and notes, comments, and clarifications will be turned over to the TETL for inclusion in the ”Technical Evaluation Report”, and will be filed in the official contract file folder with the CO.

d) Reporting. The TETL will compile the results of evaluations into the “Technical Evaluation Report” and forward to the CO. A recommendation will be made to the CO for those offeror’s that are evaluated as ACCEPTABLE. The CO will make the final determination for award to the successful offeror in accordance with the Offeror Solicitation.

5. Evaluation Criteria

a) Product/Project Team

a. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide the manufacturer’s name and product line proposed;

and project team members as identified in the specifications.

b. ACCEPTABLE: The standard is met when the offeror provides the manufacturer’s name and product line(s) proposed; and provides information on the project team members that will be assigned to this project, including project team member’s name, role, address and phone numbers, and a short synopsis which documents the number of years of experience applicable to that project team member’s role.

b) Manufacturer’s Product Literature with Product Illustrations

a. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide the manufacturer’s product literature and product illustrations, and product lines as identified in the specifications.

b. ACCEPTABLE: The standard is met when the offeror provides the manufacturer’s product literature and color product illustrations.

c) Typical Drawings/Plans

a. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide “to scale” plans, elevators, and/or 3-dimensional design drawings for each proposed typical.

b. ACCEPTABLE: The standard is met when the offeror provides “to scale” plans, elevators, and/or 3-dimensional design drawings for each proposed typical that illustrate the individual components, mounting heights of components, and any power and data outlets and connections.

d) Manufacturer’s Product Specifications

a. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide detailed product specifications to determine compliance with FAA specifications as identified in the specifications.

b. ACCEPTABLE: The standard is met when the offeror provides detailed product specifications for products that meet or exceed the FAA’s minimum specifications.

e) Manufacturer’s Warranty

a. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide a copy of the manufacturer’s warranty as identified in the specifications.

b. ACCEPTABLE: The standard is met when the offeror provides a manufacturer’s warranty that meets or exceed the warranty period specified.

f) Manufacturer’s Certificate of Availability

a. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide a written guarantee of availability of components compatible with the original installation

b. ACCEPTABLE: The standard is met when the offeror provides a written guarantee of availability of components compatible with the original installation

g) Product’s Environmental Aspects

a. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide detailed information for the amount of recycled content in products; amount of product that is post consumer recyclable; demonstration of meeting emission standards for off-gassing of product components; and demonstration of a products LEED eligibility.

b. ACCEPTABLE: The standard is met when the offeror provides detailed information for the amount of recycled content in products; amount of product that is post consumer recyclable; demonstration of meeting emission standards for off-gassing of product components; and demonstration of a product’s LEED eligibility.

Attachments (2)

1. General Specifications

2. Evaluation Checklist

Technical Evaluation Team Leader Date

Technical Evaluation Team Member Date

Technical Evaluation Team Member Date