36C25618Q0210-00005003.docx

Weighted Factors (Best Value) – Unrestricted Solicitation 36C25618Q0210 Surgical Tower Solution, Southeast Louisiana Veterans Healthcare System

BASIS OF AWARD

The Solicitation advised potential offerors that award would be made on the basis of a best value tradeoff considering the evaluation factors as articulated below. Thus, offerors were advised that under this evaluation scheme, the government has the discretion to pay a price premium for a technically superior solution or to award to a lower rated technically offeror whose lower price does not make it worth the price premium to pay for technical solutions that are higher priced. The evaluation factors in the Solicitation were articulated as follows:

Factor 1: Technical Capabilities Sub Factor 1: Performance Work Statement Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price Factor 4: SDVOSB/VOSB Participation The foregoing factors are listed in descending order of importance. All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES: Offerors must submit relevant information demonstrating technical capability to satisfactorily perform the following requirement as expressed in the Statement of Objectives in the Solicitation. The evaluation will be evaluated to determine the soundness, completeness, adequacy and technical understanding of the offeror’s proposed technical solution as reflected in the offeror provided PWS.

1. Sufficient number of qualified and trained personnel to provide a complete surgical tower solution (as required in the Solicitation’s Statement of Objective’s).

2. Sufficient equipment to provide surgical tower services (as required in the Solicitation’s Statement of Objectives).

3. Sufficient training, quality control policies, processes, and procedures to ensure contract compliance.

4. The offeror shall provide a performance Work Statement (PWS) showing a clear understanding of the requirement and tasks in accordance with the Statement of Objectives (SOO). The PWS shall demonstrate the offerors understanding of the scope and complexity of the solicitation.

Factor 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE: Offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated by the government for the purpose of evaluating performance risk. A Past Performance questionnaire is attached to Section D of the Solicitation. It is each offeror’s responsibility to forward the questionnaire to any of its past or current customers. The Government will not evaluate completed questionnaires provided by the offeror. Only relevant services performed within three years of the Solicitation’s issuance date will receive evaluation credit. Relevance is defined as similar size, scope, and magnitude as the requirements specified in the Solicitation’s Statement of Work. The Government’s past performance evaluation may extend beyond the received questionnaires to any other source of information made known to the government. Offerors with no relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably but will receive a score of ‘neutral.’

Factor 3 – PRICE: Prices will be evaluated on the basis of price fairness and reasonableness. As expressed in FAR 52.212-2, Option prices will be evaluated to determine whether they are balanced.

Factor 4: SDVOSB/VOSB Participation: As explained in VAAR 852.215-70, additional evaluation credit will be given to offerors who are properly verified in VETBIZ as an SDVOSB or VOSB, or who propose to utilize properly verified SDVOSB or VOSB subcontractors.”

Source Selection Plan Technical Ratings Scheme/Narrative/Definitions Factor 1: Technical Capabilities

a. Excellent: Proposal contains perhaps one or more strengths and no weaknesses. The technical proposal gives the government great confidence that the contractor will meet and exceed the requirements in the Solicitation.

b. Good: Proposal contains perhaps one or more strengths and if any weaknesses, they are minor. The technical proposal gives the government some confidence that the contractor will meet (and perhaps slightly exceed) the requirements in the Solicitation.

c. Satisfactory: Proposal contains no strengths and perhaps a few minor weaknesses. The technical proposal gives the government sufficient confidence that the contractor will meet (but not exceed) the requirements in the Solicitation.

d. Unsatisfactory: Proposal contains no strengths, but is replete with one or more weaknesses and one or more material deficiencies. The technical proposal gives the government no confidence that the contractor will meet the basic and material requirements in the Solicitation.

Factor 2: Past Performance

a. Excellent

b. Good

c. Satisfactory

d. Neutral

e. Unsatisfactory Factor 3: Price (will either be determined to be ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’) Factor 4: SDVOSB/VOSB Participation (‘Full Credit’ for SDVOSB/VOSB status and ‘some’ credit for use of SDVOSB/VOSB subcontractors).