ATTACHMENT 3 - EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTORS FOR SOLICITATION.docx

ATTACHMENT 3 – EVALUATION CRITERIA

DJA-25-AACD-PR-0041

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government may award multiple Blanket Purchase Agreements resulting from this request for quote RFQ to the responsible vendor whose quote conforming to the RFQ is the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA).

The lowest price quote who has technically acceptable ratings in Factors 1 & 2, will be eligible for award.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

“The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. This includes options under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, which applies to this solicitation. Evaluation of options under 52.217-8 will be accomplished by using the prices offered for the last option period, which will be added to the base and other option years to arrive at the total price. Evaluations of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).”

Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Government requires offerors to submit a Technical Approach with their quote in response to the Statement of Work (SOW) in this RFQ. The Technical Approach shall clearly demonstrate the solution meets all the requirements in the SOW. The below chart identifies how the Technical Approach will be evaluated:

Technical Approach

Table 1: Technical Approach - Ratings

Factor 2: Past Performance

Offerors shall list and describe three (3) recent and relevant contracts/projects performed for the Federal Government that are similar with respect to size, scope, and complexity of the SOW. For the description, the offeror should include Contract Number, Contract point of contact, the Government contracting and/or technical point of contact (POCs) with current phone numbers, e-mail addresses and titles, project dollar value, and a brief narrative regarding the project’s size, scope, and complexity to allow the Government to verify experience and past performance information contained in the quote.

The Government may contact those references during the evaluation. For the purpose of this factor, recent is defined as furniture design and installation services provided and completed within the last three (3) years. Additionally, the Contacting Officer may use other Government sources which may include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Contracting Officer’s knowledge of and previous experience with the service, or any other reasonable basis.

Recency: Recent is defined as contract performance within the past three years. The following ratings will be used for Past Performance Recency:

Relevancy: Relevancy includes, but is not limited to, the following: Similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. The following ratings will be used for Past Performance Relevancy:

Table 2: Past Performance – Ratings

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Government will assess the performance confidence as neutral. Therefore, the neutral offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Factor 3: Price

Price shall be evaluated for reasonableness. The CO will evaluate proposed pricing to ensure it aligns with the requirements in the SOW. The CO may use other techniques based on competition, etc.