A17 RFP A04 Section M Evaluation Criteria 061021.docx

RFQ# 63NLRB21R0003

Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Office Furniture and Related Support Services for NLRB/FPB

Date: June 10, 2021

EVALUATION

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1. This is a best value source selection that will be conducted using a Trade-Off process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, and as further refined in this solicitation. The Government intends to award an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for Office Furniture and Related Support Services. The contractor receiving the ID/IQ will also be awarded Order 01 for Office Furniture and Installation Services for Region 10 (Atlanta).

M-1.2. Technical proposals will be assessed and assigned with an adjectival rating detailed below in Section M-3.2.1.

M-1.3. Past performance evaluations will be rated as Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown as defined in Section M-3.2.2

M-1.4. An Offeror’s proposed price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award. The Government will not award to Offerors with unreasonably high proposed prices or proposals that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the ID/IQ requirements or order 01. This includes both original submissions and, if required, final offers.

M-1.5. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary. If, after initial evaluation of the offers, the Contracting Officer determines there are proposals that are awardable at a fair and reasonable price, a decision may be made to award the ID/IQ contract without discussions. Accordingly, Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully compliant and clearly acceptable without additional information. A competitive range, if required, may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

M-1.6. In order to be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements, and be deemed responsible in accordance FAR Part 9, as supplemented. If an Offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that Offeror.

M-2 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION

M-2.1. The Government intends to award without discussions and make an award based on initial proposals; however, discussions or negotiations may be held if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines them to be in the best interest of the Government. If discussions or negotiations are determined necessary, the result would be a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will make a Competitive Range determination, evaluation notices may be issued to Offerors in the competitive range, responses will be requested from applicable Offerors, and discussions will be opened. Formal responses to evaluation notices (if applicable), discussion items, and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the award decision. Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to price, technical, and all terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the Offeror and the Government at the conclusion of discussions, if held.

M-2.2. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2.3. If, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes their proposal such that the price is no longer fair and reasonable or other factor inputs change their evaluation results, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

M-3.1. Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) evaluation factors as follows:

· Factor 1: Technical

· Subfactor 1 Office Furniture and Related Support Services ID/IQ Technical

· Subfactor 2 Office Furniture and Installation Services for Region 10 (Atlanta) Order 01 Technical

· Factor 2: Past Performance

· Factor 3: Price

· ID/IQ Pricing

· Order 01 Pricing

M-3.1.2. Relative Order of Importance: All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Thus, non-price factors are highly important; however, as the vendors become more equal in non-price merit, the importance of price to the evaluation decision will increase. The Government shall make an award to the vendor who represents the overall best value to the Government.

M-3.1.3. Factor 1 - Technical Evaluation Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation for both Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the government based on the evaluation criteria. The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the offeror presents the following:

a. The degree to which the offeror demonstrates how work will be performed and quality control processes.

b. Status as an authorized Steelcase dealer

c. Warranty terms

d. The degree to which the key personnel proposed meet the criteria specified in the PWS.

e. The degree to which the offeror meets the specifications and requirements of the Statement of Work for Order 01 (Office Furniture and Installation Services for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 10 (Atlanta)).

M-3.1.4. Factor 2 – Past Performance: Offerors will be evaluated on the quality of their past performance for the contracts they have identified in the PPQs. The Government will evaluate the record of past performance in “recent” and “relevant” contract efforts. “Recent” means contracts that are on-going or have been completed within three (3) years from the closing date of this RFP. “Relevant” means performance of work similar in size and scope under similar conditions. Relevant experience is described as contractor performing work related to similar to those listed in the PWS.

Vendors without a record of recent or relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be rated neutral on Past Performance.

The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b), Communications must be held with any Offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-3.1.5. Factor 4 Price: The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine price reasonableness of the Offerors proposed price.

M-3.1.6. Final Selection: The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The SSA will make an integrated assessment of the evaluation results to determine which proposal(s) is (are) most advantageous to the Government.

M-3.1.6.1. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA later determines them to be necessary. If the SSA determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the Government does conduct discussions, these will be in writing.

M-3.1.6.2. The Contracting Officer will award an ID/IQ contract to a responsible Offeror whose proposal, as determined by the SSA conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. In addition, the Contracting Officer will award one (1) Order for the Atlanta project to the same vendor that receives the ID/IQ.

M-3.1.6.3. The Government will award the IDIQ contract resulting from this solicitation to the firm selected in accordance with the above procedures. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

M-3.2 RATING METHODOLOGY

M-3.2.1 Factor 1 – Technical: The following adjectival ratings will be used. A determination of “Unacceptable” renders the entire quote unacceptable and therefore will not be considered for award. The quote must be rated “Marginal” or higher overall to be considered for award.

M-3.2.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance: There will be two aspects to the evaluation of the Past Performance. The first aspect is to evaluate the Vendor’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Vendor is to the effort to be acquired through this RFQ. The second aspect is “Confidence.” Confidence for Past Performance is an assessment of the Vendor’s demonstrated ability to successfully perform the requirements of the contract based on how well they have performed on recent, relevant contracts. A determination of “No Confidence” renders the entire quote unacceptable and therefore will not be considered for award.

a. Relevancy: The following definitions will be used for the relevancy ratings for each project:

effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

b. Confidence: The following definitions will be used for the confidence ratings for the overall Past Performance:

M-3.2.3 Factor 3 – Price: Price will not be scored or receive an adjectival rating. Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Comparison of the proposed prices among Offerors in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include, but not limited to, the following: comparison of previously proposed costs/prices and previous Government and commercial contract costs/prices with current proposed costs/prices for the same or similar service/items; comparison with competitive market costs/prices of similar indexes; GSA Schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes; or comparison of proposed costs/prices with the Independent Government estimate.