Attachment D Evaluation Plan .pdf

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

EVALUATION PLAN

USING SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES FOR

Laundry Machine Inspection Services

W912JB-21-Q-0110

The Evaluation Plan defines the criteria, organization and policies to be used in selecting a contractor to provide Laundry services. Simplified Acquisition Procedures in accordance with FAR 13.106-2 will be used.

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

In accordance with FAR 52.212-2 specified in the solicitation, the government intends to award to the responsible company whose quote, conforming to the solicitation, is most advantageous to the government based on price and other factors that provide the best value. Best value will be determined by evaluating each quote for lowest price, past performance, and technical approach.

All evaluation factors are approximately equal.

The contract administrator will begin the evaluation process by conducting a quote compliance review for all timely-received quotes for determination of basic quote adequacy prior to providing the quotes for evaluation.

B. QUOTES REMOVED FROM EVALUATION PROCESS

Removal of a quote from further consideration can occur due to one of the following factors:

1. incomplete quote such as failure to address any factor: Technical Approach, Past Performance and Price

2. omission of providing information that may adversely affect the evaluation

3. a proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFQ

C. EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose quote is the best value to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Approach:

1. Specialized Experience and Capability A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” Paragraph D of this section.

Factor 2: Past Performance. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine ability to perform the requirements.

Factor 3: Price. The resulting award will be a firm fixed price contract type. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the firm-fixed price effort.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The quote 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 RFQ.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the quote approach is workable and the end results achievable. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed task and technical requirements within the required schedule.

Factor 1: Technical Approach:

Experience and Capability. The quote will be evaluated based on the offeror’s capability to meet the Performance Requirements listed in the PWS.

Factor 2: Past Performance:

The quote will be evaluated on the offeror’s business practices, customer relationship, and ability to successfully perform as proposed. In assessing performance, the evaluator may (1) evaluate present and past performance; (2) use data independently obtained from other government or commercial sources such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other data bases; (3) interviews with Program/Project Managers, Contracting Officers or rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; and (4) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contract and the offeror’s correction actions. The government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

If negative past performance is found, the Contracting Officer will conduct a Determination of Responsibility and contact the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency. It is within the rights of the Contracting Officer to determine if the quote is acceptable or ineligible for award consideration.

Factor 3: Price:

This contract is a firm fixed price contract type. The quote will be evaluated to determine if the price is determined to be fair and reasonable.

The government will examine price quotes for artificially low, unreasonably high or unbalanced prices. If a price is identified as one of these, the offer may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

The government reserves the right to obtain additional information concerning the price as necessary to obtain a better understanding of the price proposed. Request for such information is for clarification purposes only. If a minor clerical error has occurred, in which case the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the “clarifications” process or the Contracting Officer in his/her sole discretion later determines discussions to be necessary or appropriate.

E. RATING OF FACTORS

Note: IAW FAR Part 13.106-2(b), one or more but not necessarily all of the evaluation procedures in part 14 or 15 may be used.

The Best Value offer will be determined on the basis of the lowest priced quote meeting the acceptability standards for non-priced evaluation factors.

PRICE

Adequate price competition, per FAR 13.106-3(a) (1) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness. In order to ascertain adequate price competition, at least two or more acceptable offers must be received. In the event only one acceptable offers is received, a price fair and reasonable determination will be prepared IAW FAR 13.106-3(a) (2).

Non-Priced Evaluation Factors listed below will be evaluated on an acceptable /unacceptable basis.

TECHNICAL

TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

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

PAST PERFORMANCE

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

F. MATRIX

A summary of the overall evaluation is shown in the table below:

SUMMARY MATRIX

Offerors Technical Ratings

Past Performanc e Ratings Price

Offeror # Name