4. Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

(Attachment # 4)

VEHICLE TOWING, STORAGE, MAINTENANCE & DISPOSAL SERVICES

DISTRICTS OF MINNESOTA, NORTH DAKOTA, NEBRASKA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA,

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA AND THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

SOLICITATION NO.: 15M50022QA4400004

1. FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018)

(a) The contract will be awarded to the responsible company whose proposal conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the government, based on the evaluation of Technical

Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

➢ TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

➢ PAST PERFORMANCE

➢ PRICE

Technical and past performances, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

(b) Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. 52.217-8 will be calculated by using 50% of

Option Year 4. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

End of Provision

2. EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The evaluation process consists of three (3) components: (1) Price, (2) Past Performance, and (3)

Technical Capability by way of Written Proposals and Site Visits if deemed appropriate. Even though there are three components, the contract will be awarded to the responsible company whose proposal conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the government, based on the evaluation of Price, Past Performance, and Technical Capability.

(b) The government may choose to conduct site visits; companies selected for site visits will be notified of the date and time. No rescheduling of site visits will be done unless determined necessary by the government to resolve unanticipated problems or delays encountered in the proposal process.

(c) The best value determination will be made as follows:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DISTRICTS OF MINNESOTA, NORTH DAKOTA, NEBRASKA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA,

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA AND THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

a. The total evaluated price will be the determining factor for award among proposals that are considered substantially equal with regards to non-price factors. That is, where the USMS determines that the non-price factors of each offeror are not significantly different among competing proposals, then the proposal with the lowest evaluated price will be selected for award.

b. If the USMS determines that there are non-price factor differences among competitive proposals, then a more expensive proposal may be selected for award where the contracting officer determines that the value of the selected proposal is worth the price differential.

c. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make awards without discussions.

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal shall contain their best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

3. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

(a) Technical Capability will be presented to the government by means of a Written Proposal and via the government’s observations at a site visit if deemed appropriate and scheduled. The specific technical evaluation sub-factors, which must be addressed in the Written Proposal, are set forth below. The responses to each section of Technical Capability must contain an adequate description of the services being offered in sufficient detail for the Technical Evaluation Board

(TEB) to determine that your company can meet the requirements of the solicitation. Any Offeror whose technical proposal is found to be unacceptable may be removed from further consideration for award at the discretion of the CO.

(b) The Technical Capability factors and sub-factors below will be used by the Technical Evaluation

Board (TEB) to comparatively evaluate each company. All responses must be presented to the

TEB in the Written Proposal, and the current or proposed storage facilities must be available for the TEB members to conduct a Site Inspection if deemed necessary in the evaluation process.

(1) FACILITY, STAFFING, AND SECURITY

(i) Your firm’s description of current or proposed facilities will be evaluated on the

Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(ii) Your firm’s detailed description of the Phase In Plan for contract transition (to include time period, security, equipment, personnel, etc.) will be evaluated on the Technical

Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(iii) Your firm’s detailed description of the Phase Out Plan for contract transition (to include time period, security, equipment, personnel, etc.) will be evaluated on the Technical

Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work

(iv) Your firm’s description of your workforce (including sub-lets) will be evaluated on the

Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(v) Your firm’s description of your Physical Security Plan in place at the main storage facility will be evaluated on the Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of

Work.

DISTRICTS OF MINNESOTA, NORTH DAKOTA, NEBRASKA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA,

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA AND THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

(2) RELOCATION

(i) Your firm’s proposed equipment for relocation will be evaluated on the Technical

Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(ii) Your firm’s detailed plan of the towing process for transition of assets from the incumbent facility to the newly awarded facility will be evaluated on the Technical

Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(iii) Your firm’s detailed description of the relocation plan upon receipt of the STO including time frames for relocating a vehicle to be seized from its current location (not from incumbent storage facility) to the primary storage facility will be evaluated on the

Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(3) INITIAL INTAKE

(i) Your firm’s description of the initial intake of a vehicle will be evaluated on the

Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(ii) Your firm’s description of your management system for tracking and storing keys and case files/records will be evaluated on the Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the

Statement of Work.

(iii) Your firm’s description of the process to inventory vehicle and contents and subsequent removal of any personal property will be evaluated on the Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(4) STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE

(i) Your firm’s description of your ability to obtain and maintain liability insurance commensurate with the value of asset inventory throughout the life of the contract

(Example: Insurance quotation and policy documents) will be evaluated on the Technical

Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(ii) Your firm’s demonstrated ability to track assets in contractor’s custody will be evaluated on the Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

(iii) Your firm’s demonstrated ability to perform maintenance and mechanical repairs as requested to vehicle types as stated in the SOW; along with your firm’s ability to perform specific tasks such as mold remediation, removal of hidden compartments and winterization and long-term storage will be evaluated on the Technical Evaluation

Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

DISTRICTS OF MINNESOTA, NORTH DAKOTA, NEBRASKA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA,

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA AND THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

(5) DISPOSAL

(i) Live auction: Your firm’s description of the entire auction process from preview day through the USMS receipt of sale proceeds and documentation (security, registration, and documentation, etc.) will be evaluated on the Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the

Statement of Work.

(ii) Online auction: Your firm’s provided process for online sales plan to include website samples, how auctions will be conducted online, duration proposed, and marketing plan and outreach efforts will be evaluated on the Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the

Statement of Work.

(iii) Your firm’s provided sample marketing plan (should incorporate market research, advertising, proposed sales campaign, creative sales strategy, etc.) for one low valued vehicle (less than $10k) for one mid valued vehicle (for the range of $10,001 to $99,999) and one high valued vehicle (over $100,000) for a live and online sale will be evaluated on the Technical Evaluation Board’s degree of confidence that the proposed solution can successfully achieve the requirements in the Statement of Work.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE

(a) By past performance, the government means the offeror’s record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship; the offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror’s reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the offeror’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

(b) The evaluation of the offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror with that of other competitors.

(c) In investigating an Offeror’s performance, the government may consider the information provided by the Contractor as well as information obtained from other sources, including past and present customers and their employees; other federal government agencies (including

National Institutes of Health Contractor Performance System), state and local government agencies; consumer protection organizations and better business bureaus; former subcontractors; and others who may have pertinent information.

(d) The offeror is required to provide information regarding the level of performance, in terms of delivery and quality achieved, under government and/or commercial contract(s) for the same or similar services within the last three years. The information provided should reflect the offeror’s record of performance in the areas of conforming to specifications, adherence to contract schedules, reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for the interest of the customer. Additionally, if performance deficiencies are identified, describe the deficiency and the corrective action taken.

(e) The offeror is required to provide a completed worksheet “Past Performance Data Worksheet”

(Attachment #6) for three (3) similar and relevant Federal Government or Commercial contracts worked on within the last three (3) years.

(f) In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and will receive a neutral rating.

DISTRICTS OF MINNESOTA, NORTH DAKOTA, NEBRASKA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA,

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA AND THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

5. PRICE

(a) Each price quote will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a) as appropriate. Contract award will be based on an assessment of which quotation presents the best combination of technical capability, past performance and price. The government may make award for other than the lowest price.