2.2.1 Attachment 1_Tech Evaluation_DR4673-FL Commercial Park Pad_Lot Leases.pdf

Attachment 1 Subject: Technical Evaluation Criteria

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

• This attachment outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s proposals regarding Transportable Temporary Housing Unit – Commercial Park Pad Lease – DR4673-FL. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the below evaluation criteria set forth.

• The Government intends to make multiple single contract awards under this request for quote to the offeror who proposal represents the best value to the Government.

• A rating of Unsatisfactory on any non-priced factors will render the entire proposal technically unacceptable and therefore, not eligible for award after onsite EHP inspections. The non-priced factors are listed below in order of importance (i.e. Factor 1 is most important).

• Pricing will be evaluated in accordance with the offeror’s pricing spreadsheet, HUD.gov Fair Market Rents per zip code, and current market rates for commercial parks in the surrounding area for fairness and reasonableness.

Factor 1. Technical Evaluation The Contractor's proposal response shall be evaluated based on submitted Commercial Parks capability statement inclusive of open MHU/TT lots located in the declared disaster counties (Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Hardee, Lee, Sarasota, Volusia) slated for a housing mission and viable commercial pad/lots available for inspection to determine feasibility for use.

Factor 2. Project Management Plan & Personnel The contractor’s quotation shall be evaluated on its demonstrated project management and oversight capability. The Contractor must propose an acceptable plan and/or staff dedicated to managing the Transportable Temporary Housing Mission and this plan should seek demonstrate the offeror’s ability to direct and control the operation of the following, but not limited to background check processing, installation and deactivation of MHU/TT units on the Commercial Park site, and other duties as outlined in the statement of work. The proposal response should also address resolution of any issues that may arise in conflict of the Commercial Park rules.

Factor 3: Past Performance & Company Experience The submitted past performance experiences shall be past and current operations similar to the requirements set forth in this solicitation. Past experience summaries shall be based on previous years of experience for Commercial Park operations over the past 1-3 years or currently in process.

Experience may include current residents and/or Contracts entered into with the Federal Government, agencies of State and local governments, and commercial customers. Contracts with the parent or an affiliate of the offeror may not be used.

The Government will consider the above information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s experience. The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror's record of relevant and recent work for government and private sector clients.

Factor 3. Cost or Price Evaluation In accordance with FAR 15.304 paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A), the Contracting Officer shall consider price or cost as one of the factors in the selection decision for each individual contract executed per these requirements. Additionally, comparison of the proposed prices as indicated on Attachment 1 - Evaluation Factors will be utilized to perform a price analysis.

The technical evaluation rating criteria are as follow:

Rating DESCRIPTION Superior Demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and a staffing approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. The MHU/TT pad/lots are deemed feasible after inspections and readily available for use with no risk of delays and unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Demonstrates a good understanding of the requirement and staffing approach that meets performance or capability standards. The MHU/TT pad/lots are deemed soft infeasible (pending additional inspections with minor improvements of sites easily completed within 24-48 hours, current pad/lots partially available for use until total available pad/lots passes inspections with minimal risk of delays and unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory Demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and weakness in the staffing approach that could use minor adjustments to meet performance or capability standards. The MHU/TT pad/lots are deemed soft infeasible (pending additional inspections with medium improvements of sites completed within 5-7 business days, current pad/lots are partially available for use and total pad/lots available for future use with a moderate risk level for delays and unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Marginal Demonstrates a shallow/deficient understanding of the requirement and is lacking a designated staffing approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. The MHU/TT pad lots are deemed infeasible and future discussions will be needed for improvements, debris removal, maintenance, construction needs, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory Fails to meet requirement, failed EHP inspections, and one or more deficiencies exist for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal.

Neutral A “Neutral” rating indicates a new Commercial Park Owner without a record of past performance of ownership, or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available.

Definitions:

• Strengths - An element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government.

• Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Deficiency- A material failure of an offer to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in an offer that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

The Past Performance rating criteria are as follows:

The government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevance.

The following definitions apply:

Very Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort, complexities, and contract dollars this task order proposal requires.

Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort, complexities, and contract dollars this task order proposal requires.

Rating System for Past Performance Evaluation Factors:

Superior: Based on the offeror’s past performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory: Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is likely that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unsatisfactory: Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is not likely that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort