Attachment 5 Revised Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 Basis for Award

In accordance with FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services

(NOV 2021), the Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

Award will be made using a Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPT) with a technical factor evaluation process.

The following evaluation factors shall be used:

1. Past Experience

2. Past Performance

3. Price

Only proposals rated Technically Acceptable for past experience will be eligible for further evaluation and award consideration.

Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. However, once proposals are determined Technically Acceptable, award will be made based on a tradeoff between Past

Performance and Price.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

M.2 Technical Experience (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The Government will evaluate proposals to determine whether the Offeror demonstrates the minimum experience to perform the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Technical Acceptability will be evaluated based on:

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance.

Proposals with an Unacceptable rating are not eligible for award.

To be rated Acceptable, the Technical Experience submission must clearly demonstrate acceptability with all requirements below. Failure to meet any requirement may result in a rating of Unacceptable and elimination from further consideration.

The Government will evaluate the following:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates recent and relevant technical experience performing work similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements of the PWS.

Offerors must provide recent (within the last five (5) years) and relevant contracts demonstrating performance of work within the scope of this solicitation and involving a minimum of one (1) million or more square feet of work for each project. Contracts may be ongoing or completed;

ongoing contracts must have at least two (2) years of performance.

Offeror shall submit at least 3 contracts but no more than 5 contracts; each contract submitted has a three-page limit for a total maximum of 15 pages. Submissions exceeding page limits may not be evaluated beyond the page limits identified.

Offerors must have acted as the prime contractor on submitted projects.

Technical Experience will be evaluated for:

• Recency

• Relevancy

• Scope

• Magnitude of effort

Only proposals rated Technically Acceptable for the technical experience factor will be evaluated under the remaining factors.

M.3 Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past performance on recent and relevant contracts to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort.

Offerors must provide three (3) but no more than five (5) contracts that are recent (within the last five (5) years) and relevant contracts demonstrating performance of work within the scope of this solicitation and involving a minimum of 1 million or more square feet of work. Contracts may be ongoing or completed; ongoing contracts must have at least two (2) years of performance. Each past performance submission is limited to 5 pages for a total of 25 pages. Submissions exceeding page limits may not be evaluated beyond the page limits identified.

Offerors shall provide the following information for contracts completed within the last five (5) years that are similar in size and scope:

• Contract identification number

• Overall dollar value

• Overall square footage cleaned

• Name of contracting organization

• Contact name

• Current telephone number and/or email address

Projects identified under Past Experience may also be submitted for Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate past performance based on:

• Recency

• Relevancy

• Quality of Services

• Schedule

• Management

• Regulatory Compliance

• Safety

• Customer Satisfaction

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or customer surveys must provide sufficient information for the Government to evaluate the aforementioned items.

The offeror is responsible for ensuring the PPQ, Attachment #8, is completed by the customer’s contract manager/CO/owner/COR (or commercial equivalent for the respective past performance submission). Offeror shall only submit PPQs for those projects that do not have a completed report in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). If CPARS for individual contracts or task order have been completed, do not send PPQ, rather include the

CPARS as part of the offeror’s submission for past performance.

Recency Assessment - An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five

(5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Efforts that have not yet been completed must have at least 2 years of contract performance by the date of issuance of this solicitation. If past performance information is determined Not Recent, the effort will not be evaluated any further. A Recency Assessment will be assigned for each evaluated effort as described below:

RECENCY ASSESSMENT

Rating Description

Recent Presented past performance effort is ongoing and or has been performed during the past five (5) years.

Not Recent Presented past performance effort is not ongoing and or has not been performed during the past five (5) years.

Relevancy Assessment - The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to this solicitation. Relevant efforts/projects are defined as janitorial services meeting the following:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort, type, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude and scope of effort, type, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude and scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the magnitude and scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Government may consider information obtained from:

• CPARS

• Past Performance Questionnaire

• Customer surveys

• Past knowledge of the Offeror

• Other reasonable sources

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the

Offeror's ability to successfully perform the requirements of this effort. The evaluation is based on recency, relevancy, and a demonstrated record of performance. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the below Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings:

Integrated Performance

Confidence Assessment

Rating

Description

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the

Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The

Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.5 Price

Price will be evaluated for completeness, fairness and reasonableness.

The Government will evaluate the total price for award purposes by adding the total price for the base requirement and all option years and optional tasks.

The Government may determine whether an offer to be unacceptable if option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M.6 Performance-Price Tradeoff

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the

Government.

For proposals rated Technically Acceptable, the Contracting Officer will conduct a tradeoff between Past Performance and Price.

The Government may determine that a proposal with a higher price is justified if it demonstrates a higher level of confidence in successful performance. Conversely, a lower-priced proposal with a lower confidence rating may be selected if the Contracting Officer determines that the price premium associated with a higher-rated proposal is not warranted.

The tradeoff decision will be documented and will reflect a reasoned judgment consistent with the stated evaluation factors.