Addendum II Section 4 Hood and Ducts (UPDATES 18 MAR 24).docx

FAR 52.212-2 Addendum II Updates to section 4

EVALUATION CRITERIA

4 VOLUME II - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY –

4.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) sections required in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum I – Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, 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 may make a final determination as to the Offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the Offeror. The Offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2. Technical Acceptability - The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.”

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

4.3. SUB-FACTOR ONE – LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATIONS Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following:

· One (1) Concern License issued by the Office of the Utah State Fire Marshall in commercial kitchen exhaust cleaning service.

· One (1) certificate of registration per inspector and service technician in commercial kitchen exhaust cleaning service competency training issued by the proper personnel sanctioned by the Office of the Utah State Fire Marshall.

4.4. SUB-FACTOR TWO – LOCAL PRESENCE Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following:

· Local presence established (by contractor contract award) through the proof that the contractor operates in the local area, within 75 miles, with established facilities within 75 miles of Hill Air Force Base for the management and operation of personnel needed to fulfill the requirements established by the PWS, not just sub- contracted and managed remotely. A Google maps or equivalent to verify proximity of facilities and a copy of the local business license.

4.5. SUB-FACTOR THREE – SITE VISIT Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following:

· The site visits to each facility prior to proposal submission is required in order to submit a valid proposal. A copy of the site visit attendance logs with company representative signature, a smartphone captured copy should be of high enough quality to be legible.

4.6. SUB-FACTOR FOUR – EXPERIENCE Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following:

· Must have establish a minimum of three (3) years hands on experience in commercial kitchen exhaust cleaning service. May submit copies of contracts or invoices with a minimum of related completion/deficiency reports. The minimum number of reports is 32 annual, or 3 quarterly, or 8 monthly completion or deficiency reports over a three (3) year period.

4.7. Experience information will be gathered from Offeror submissions. Only recent and relevant experience information will be considered to assess work performed.

4.8. Recency is defined as performance less than 4 years old from the issue date of the RFP. The Government will not consider experience where performance was concluded more than Four years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

4.9. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of inspections, and maintenance services described in this RFP.