52.212-2 B507 Paint Line Monorail.pdf

52.212-2

Evaluation Factors for Award

B507 Paint Line Monorail Upgrade

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by 52.212-1 ITO of this solicitation. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for the Engineering and Technical data program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.2 Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered reasonably correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Government will evaluate for acceptability on the factors and subfactors described below:

Factor One – Price

Factor Two – Technical Subfactor 1 – Modification to System Controls Subfactor 2 – Monorail Expansion Subfactor 3 – Wireless communications in areas with Restrictions Subfactor 4 – PLC Integration/Controls Subfactor 5 – GUI (Graphical User Interface)

Factor Three – Schedule

Factor Four – Code

Factor Five – Staff/Experience

2.1 Evaluation Methodology

2.1.1 A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with Section

2.2 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1.2 Next, a technical, schedule, code, and staff evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror. Evaluations will cease when an adequate number of technically acceptable proposals receive a satisfactory rating in all factors. Only those Offerors determined to be technically acceptable with a satisfactory rating either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

2.1.3 Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors.

2.2 Price Factor

2.2.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness, and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.2.2 Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with FAR 52.212-1 of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions will NOT be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.2.3 Price Reasonableness – The offerors price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 13. Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria of price reasonableness.

2.2.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices, CLINS 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, and 0006 for the base year and all option years, and prices for the six-month period covered by FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. All prices that comprise the TEP are contractually binding and must be populated. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.2.5 Unbalanced Pricing – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or subline items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3 Technical Factor

2.3.1 Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s Technical Proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Proposal to ensure that the offeror can sufficiently perform the requirements within the SOW adequately with emphasis on the elements of the technical subfactors listed below. The Technical Proposal shall explain how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements. The Technical Proposal shall NOT simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements in the SOW. If an Offeror rephrases/restates the SOW, their Technical Proposal will be unacceptable.

2.3.2 The offeror shall elaborate on examples of previous work relating to the sections below, where the contractor faced obstacles, how they overcame them, and how they plan to translate their experience to the B507 Paint Line Monorail project.

Offerors must provide 1-2 examples for each technical subfactor that must be within the last 25 years, can be native to the firm or from hired subcontractors, and must involve projects with a similar automated monorail system.

2.3.3 The Technical Proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned one of the following ratings:

2.3.4 Technical Subfactor 1: Modification to System Controls (see FAR 52.212-1, 4.1)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed technical capability and overall approach for executing the SOW requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate an established, sound, feasible, and effective approach that clearly demonstrates evidence of the full capability, and extensive experience their team possesses for executing the following SOW requirements:

a. The offeror shall elaborate on modification to system controls such as converting hard wired communication components to wireless and integration of new communication components.

2.3.5 Technical Subfactor 2: Monorail Expansion (see FAR 52.212-1, 4.2)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed technical capability and overall approach for executing the SOW requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate an established, sound, feasible, and effective approach that clearly

a. The offeror shall elaborate on expanding onto an existing overhead monorail system such as adding a maintenance spur, and how to integrate the new section and controls with the rest of the system.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.3.6 Technical Subfactor 3: Wireless communications in areas with Restrictions (see

FAR 52.212-1, 4.3)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed technical capability and overall approach for executing the SOW requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate an established, sound, feasible, and effective approach that clearly

a. The offeror shall elaborate on installing wireless communications in areas that may have additional requirements such as on the flight line, restricted areas, without interference of other nearby wireless signals, and maintaining a steady signal.

2.3.7 Technical Subfactor 4: PLC Integration/Controls (see FAR 52.212-1, 4.4)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed technical capability and overall approach for executing the SOW requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate an established, sound, feasible, and effective approach that clearly

a. The offeror shall elaborate on PLC integration, controls, maintaining proper carrier separation, how carrier position will be accurately tracked in the system, and ensuring correct flow and dwell times at stations.

2.3.8 Technical Subfactor 5: GUI (Graphical User Interface) (see FAR 52.212-1, 4.5)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed technical capability and overall approach for executing the SOW requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate an established, sound, feasible, and effective approach that clearly

a. The offeror shall elaborate on constructing professional and user-friendly GUI (Graphical User Interface) with safety features, display of error codes with associated details, and illustration of asset flow.

2.4 Schedule Factor

2.4.1 Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s Proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Proposal to ensure that the offeror can sufficiently perform these requirements.

2.4.2 The Proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned one of the following ratings:

2.4.3 Description: This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed schedule and overall approach for executing the SOW requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate an established, sound, feasible, and effective approach that clearly demonstrates evidence of the full capability, and extensive experience their team possesses for executing the following SOW requirements:

a. The offeror shall provide an installation schedule with timeframes and methods on how they will meet their schedule.

b. The proposed timelines shall provide how partial/full shutdown phases will be minimized to reduce impact to production and how long any partial/full shutdown phases will be limited to in number of days.

c. Any full shutdown phase up to one week will significantly interrupt production’s workflow.

2.5 Code Factor

2.5.1 Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s Proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Proposal to ensure that the offeror can sufficiently meet these requirements.

2.5.2 The Proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned one of the following ratings:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.5.3 Description: This factor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of all applicable codes and standards in their approach for executing the SOW requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate an established, sound, feasible, and effective approach that clearly demonstrates expertise with codes and standards.

a. The offeror shall provide examples of key codes and standards that must be followed and how they plan to meet them.

2.6 Staff/Experience Factor

2.6.1 Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s Proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Proposal to ensure that the offeror can sufficiently meet these requirements.

2.6.2 The Technical Proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned one of the following ratings:

2.6.3 Description: This factor evaluates the offeror’s native and hired staff. The proposal shall demonstrate how the offeror meets these requirements.

a. The offeror shall provide evidence substantiating that at least one licensed Professional Engineer (PE) is an employee of the contractor’s firm or hired.

Substantiating documents shall include one (1) copy of valid PE licensure and (1) any other documentation validating the licensed PE license (reference SOW section 3.3).

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

b. The offeror must have 10 years of experience installing similar monorail systems either in their own firm or hired. Substantiating documents shall include one (1) copy of certificate of incorporation and one (1) copy of letter of good standing from the state of which the business is incorporated (reference SOW section 3.3).

3 DISCUSSIONS:

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions, therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

4 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.