Attachment 1 - Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria.pdf

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS & EVALUATION CRITERIA

Borescope Inspection System

1. INTRODUCTION.

This section contains proposal submission instructions as well as specific proposal requirements for the solicitation, and evaluation criteria under the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable method.

The offeror’s proposal shall be labeled in a consistent manner with this document. All references to the

Statement of Work (SOW) shall be clearly labeled with the appropriate SOW paragraph. Offerors are expected to submit proposals in sufficient detail to allow for Government evaluation without the need for further clarifications. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems it finds in proposals. The burden of proving acceptability remains with the offerors.

2. QUOTATION INSTRUCTIONS.

The quotation shall be provided by email to: charlotte.a.sylvain.civ@mail.mil and shall consist of the following:

Priced Quote with part number(s) to satisfy all SOW requirements

Offerors are responsible to inquire with the Contract Specialist to ensure that the quotation submitted has, in fact, been received by the Contract Specialist.

3. PROPOSAL FILES.

Format. The submission shall be clear and logically assembled. All proposals shall be submitted in

Microsoft Office format. Offeror shall not use security options within the files. Pages shall not exceed 8-

1/2 inches in width by 11 inches in length. The font used shall not be less than 10 point. MS Word (.doc) and Adobe (.pdf) files are acceptable and shall use shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right 1” Gutter – 0”

From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5”

Page Size, Width – 8.5”

Page Size, Height – 11”

Content Requirements. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each quotation.

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details (WITHOUT REFERENCE TO COST/PRICE) to permit a complete and accurate evaluation strictly from a technical standpoint.

The offeror shall provide detailed narrative discussions that address the SOW requirements. The following shall be included in the quotation:

4. QUOTATION

The Offeror shall present sufficient information to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as outlined in the SOW. The submission should include overall dimensions and capabilities mailto:charlotte.a.sylvain.civ@mail.mil of the piece of equipment to include a complete set of specifications and available options. Quoted equipment shall conform to the SOW. The Offeror shall propose a delivery schedule with sufficient information for the Government to assess the ability to meet requirements on time.

Offerors shall submit a Firm Fixed Price proposal for each CLIN.

Basis for Award

The Government plans to award a firm fixed price purchase order as a result of this Request for Quote

(RFQ). The evaluation of quotes shall be conducted utilizing the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable

(LPTA) evaluation approach, based on an evaluation of quotes in the areas of Technical and Price. Under this evaluation approach, a quote would not receive any additional credit for exceeding the established minimum defined requirements of technical acceptability.

Evaluation Factors & Evaluation Approach

All proposals will be evaluated in a fair and consistent manner. All proposals will be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. The Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the lowest priced proposal that meets the acceptability standards for the non-cost factor (Technical) will be awarded the Task Order.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low priced when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

The Government reserves the right to award based on initial proposals. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with the Offeror’s (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Factor 1-Technical

The technical portion of the quote will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable based on the assessment of the stated minimum requirements below. In order for a quote to be rated Acceptable, Offerors are required to provide a quantity of one (1) cyclic corrosion chamber and any additional support equipment that meets all the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) to include delivery schedule.

The following adjectival rating will be utilized in the evaluation of Technical:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

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

Factor 2- Price

The Total Evaluated Price is the total price proposed for the purchase order. This Total Evaluated Price will then be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-

1(b). Price will not be scored.

Price/Cost Inconsistencies: A proposal is presumed to represent an Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. Each initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms for award for this contract. Any inconsistencies in performance or price should be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of work required and its financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.