2.2.1.1 Evaluation Criteria - 10 MVU - 8.6.21 (ocpo-occe).pdf

Instructions to Offerors: Evaluation Criteria

Technical Proposal:

The Offeror shall submit a written proposal totaling no more than 10 pages detailing:

1. Demonstrated experience in providing and managing Medical Care Type 5 Mobile Vaccination Units, as required in the SOW at 3.1, Wrap-Around Service, as required in the SOW at 3.7, and mobilization/ demobilization, as required in the SOW at 3.0; that is similar to or exceeds the scope and complexity identified in the Statement of Work (SOW). Experience that is similar in scope and complexity is experience providing and managing ten mobile medical units and their wraparound services simultaneously.

The Offeror shall describe in detail:

1.1. Demonstrated experience in changing MVU configuration to meet changing environments.

Examples: If you do not have markings on the ground for your unit to be grounded or you must change the way you hook up to a local power source.

1.2. Demonstrated experience in providing operational and logistical support for MVU delivery and availability.

1.3. Demonstrated experience with providing mobile facilities that meet or exceed, or could be modified to meet or exceed the MVU specifications provided in the SOW at 3.1.

1.4. Demonstrated experience in managing staff and/or subcontracting to provide all necessary equipment and wraparound services, as required in the SOW at 3.7

1.5. The Offeror shall demonstrate specific experience with a material or product failure in the field and how your company overcame this experience.

Offeror may provide or reference up to three (3) recent examples of demonstrated experience in their submission. Offeror is encouraged to submit experience performed as a prime, through teaming agreements, or as the sole sub-contractor on the relevant projects. More weight may be given to experience serving as the prime contractor, depending on the circumstances.

Experience submitted that was performed by sub-contractors anticipated for this contract effort will be considered as relevant. Recent is defined as within the last five (5) years, and relevant is defined as being of a similar scope and complexity.

2. Technical Solution The Offeror shall describe in detail:

1. Its ability to provide top tier mobile vaccination unit wraparound support services across all requested environments and locations for ten MVUs simultaneously, as required in section 3.7 of the SOW.

2. Its ability to provide ten MVUs that meet or exceed the requirements of the SOW, at Section 3.1 and 3.2, within 24 hours of award.

3. Its ability to simultaneously establish and sustain MVU support at multiple sites concurrently in accordance schedules provided by the SLTTs through the COR and the SOW at section 3.0.

3. Management Capability The Offeror shall describe in detail:

1. Its plan for managing unexpected and expected MVU issues and schedule adjustments in the field within 24-hours, in accordance with the SOW at Section 3.0.

2. Its plan to manage the MVU scheduling and wraparound services, in accordance with the schedules provided to the contractor by the COR, as stated in the SOW at 3.0 and 3.7.

3. Its plan to manage the simultaneously establishment and sustainment of MVU support at multiple sites concurrently in accordance the SLTTs schedules, as provided by the COR, and the SOW at sections 3.0, 3.1, and 3.7.

4. If the proposal includes subcontracting work, the proposal shall detail its ability to manage and integrate subcontractors to ensure efficient and effective services are provided.

4. Past Performance

The Offeror shall complete up to three (3) Past Performance Questionnaires (see Attachment 3). [The questionnaire does NOT count toward the 10-page technical proposal limit].

5. Price/Cost Proposal

Please complete and submit the following pricing chart:

FIRM FIXED PRICE

CLIN Description of Services - Base & Options QTY U/I Unit Price Amount

0001 Equipment Rental 3 MO

0002 Wrap-Around Services 3 MO

0003 Mobilization/Demobilization 3 MO

Base Period Total Value

1001 Equipment Rental 1 MO

1002 Wrap-Around Services 1 MO

1003 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 MO

Base + Option Period Total Value

Basis of Award: FEMA intends to award one (1) firm fixed price (FFP) contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered, in accordance with the evaluation factors and the best value tradeoff method described below. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The non-price evaluation factors are approximately equal, with Factor 1- Demonstrated Experience, being equal to Factor 2 – Technical Solution, Factor 3- Management Capability, and Factor 4 – Past Performance. The Government will evaluate each proposal in accordance with the following evaluation criteria for price and non-price factors:

Evaluation Factors: The proposal will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

1. Demonstrated Experience

2. Technical Solution

3. Management Capability

4. Past Performance

5. Cost/Price

The Government may award any resulting contract to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with the highest non-price (technical) ratings. All information provided in the Offeror's proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the above technical evaluation factors.

Demonstrated Experience: The offeror shall demonstrate in the submission that it has experience in Medical Care Type 5 Mobile Vaccination Units, as required in the SOW at 3.1, Wrap-Around Service, as required in the SOW at 3.7, and mobilization/ demobilization, as required in the SOW at 3.0; to support the scope and complexity identified in the Statement of Work (SOW).

The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine the Government’s confidence in their demonstrated experience in:

5.1. Providing demonstrated experience in changing MVU configuration to meet changing environments, such as in scenarios where there are no markings on the ground for your unit to be grounded or the way the MVU is hooked up to a local power source must change due to the local power source available.

5.2. Providing operational and logistical support for MVU delivery and availability.

5.3. Providing mobile facilities that meet or could be modified to meet or exceed the MVU specifications provided in the SOW at 3.1.

5.4. Managing staff or subcontracting to provide all necessary equipment and wraparound services, as required in the SOW at 3.7.

5.5. Overcoming a material or product failure in the field.

The evaluation of this factor is based on the demonstrated prior experience presented by the offeror, and how well it aligns with the requirements in the SOW.

Technical Solution: The offeror’s technical solution will be evaluated on the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement, as stated in the SOW at sections 3.0 – 3.2, and 3.7, and ability to provide a sound approach for providing 10 MVUs with wraparound support services, in accordance with provided schedules, and with little, none, or some Government intervention.

Specifically, the offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for:

4. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated on its demonstrated ability to provide top tier mobile vaccination unit wraparound support services across all requested environments and locations as necessary to accomplish the MVU delivery service, as required in the SOW at section 3.7.

5. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated on their ability to fully describe the offeror’s proposed solution to achieve requirements of the SOW and address the offeror’s technical solution.

6. The offeror’s technical solution will be evaluated on its ability to meet or exceed the MVU specification requirements and deliverable schedule as stated in the SOW at Section 3.0 – 3.2.

7. The offeror’s technical solution will be evaluated on their ability to simultaneously establish and sustain MVU support at multiple sites concurrently in accordance the SLTT’s schedules, as provided by the COR, in accordance with the SOW at section 3.0.

Management Capability: The offeror will be evaluated on its ability to manage wraparound services support and unexpected and expected MVU issues and schedule adjustments. Critical evaluation elements shall be assessed as follows:

5. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated on its demonstrated ability in managing unexpected and expected MVU issues and schedule adjustments in the field within 24-hours.

6. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s ability to manage the MVU scheduling and wraparound services, in accordance with the schedules provided to the contractor by the COR, as stated in the SOW at 3.0 and 3.7.

7. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated on its ability to simultaneously establish and sustain MVU support at multiple sites concurrently in accordance the state’s locational priorities

8. If the proposal includes subcontracting work, the proposal shall be evaluated on the offeror’s ability to manage and integrate subcontractors to ensure efficient and effective services are provided.

FEMA intends to evaluate proposals using the below confidence rating schemes to measure the Government’s confidence that the offerors understand the requirement, propose a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract. One (1) factor with a “Low Confidence” rating will remove the Offeror from further consideration for award.

Rating Scheme for Factors 1, 2, & 3:

Rating Definition

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

4. Past Performance: The Government will evaluate past performance in terms of: 1) past project relevancy to the Scope of Work, and 2) the offeror’s probability of success as demonstrated by past ability to successfully maintain project schedule, minimize modifications, and compliance with contract requirements. Projects of greater relevancy (in terms of recentness [project services within 3 yrs] and similarity in, scope, and complexity) to the current acquisition may be given greater weight than those of lesser relevance.

The government will review submitted Past Performance Questionnaires. Additionally, the Contracting Officer may obtain past performance information available from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The Government reserves the right to use past performance information obtained from sources other than PPIRS, the projects identified by the contractor in its proposal, or earlier contract performance when evaluating past performance.

Rating Description High Confidence Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Significant Confidence Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the government has significant confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the government has confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

Unknown Confidence No past performance record is identifiable. Offeror’s past performance is neither favorable nor unfavorable

Little Confidence Based on the offeror’s past performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s past performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Cost/Price: The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques. Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

Unreasonably high, unreasonably low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Instructions to Offerors: Evaluation Criteria