SECTION_M_-__Wood_Steps__Handrail_Wood_ADA_Ramp_and_Natural_Stone_Path_and_Courtyard_patio_Construction.docx

SECTION M – EVAULATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will award the contract to the offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government on the basis of (1) the offeror’s price and (2) the capability of the offer as explained below:

Price: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the price of each acceptable offer in relation to the offeror’s relative capability.

Capability of the Offeror : The Government will assess the capability of each offeror on the basis of the following evaluation factor: (1) Organizational Past Performance. The Government will not assess capability on a pass/fail basis, but will use its assessments of capability as a basis for comparing offerors to determine best value.

Organizational Past Performance: Past Performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror satisfied its customers in the past and complied with Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations on similar projects. The Government will contact some of each offeror’s customers on past similar projects to ask whether or not: (1) the offeror was capable, efficient, and effective; (2) the offeror’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract (specifications); (3) finished within the contract time; (4) the offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance; and (5) the oferor was committed to customer satisfaction.

Note: In accordance with FAR 15.305, in the case an offeror without a record of relevant past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated either favorable or unfavorably in this area, but instead will receive a neutral rating in the area of past performance.

Basis of Award:

Non-price evaluation factor are of less importance than price. An offer must be acceptable in order for the offeror to be eligible for award. The Government will not award a contract on the basis of an unacceptable offer.

Past performance references will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality.

A past performance reference could receive the following relevancy ratings (relationship to solicited project): relevant, somewhat relevant, and not relevant.

A past performance reference could receive the following quality ratings: exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory, and not applicable.

The Government will use the above factors to develop an overall Confidence assessment of Substantial, Satisfactory, or Marginal, i.e. the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror can perform as proposed and described in the Statement of Work.

The Government reserves the right to make price/past performance trade-offs that are in the best interest and advantageous to the Government. The critical factor in making any price/past performance trade-off is not the difference between the past performance evaluations but the significance of the difference. A higher priced proposal with “substantial” confidence assessment may outweigh a lower price proposal with a “marginal” confidence rating.

The Government my reject any and all offers if such action is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.