Attch 2 - Evaluation Criteria Final.docx

ATTACHMENT 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA (191NLE24R0027)

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The Government contemplates award of a single-award Firm-Fixed Unit Price contract resulting from this solicitation. It is the intent of the Government to make an award based on the initial proposal without discussions.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Technical Evaluation Factors (i.e., non-Cost/Price) will be evaluated using an adjectival (Outstanding, Acceptable, Unacceptable) rating scheme. The basis of award will be Best Value using Tradeoffs, price and non-price factors considered. The following technical factors and evaluation criteria shall be used, with the percentage of overall rating representing the level of importance (weight) for that factor (i.e Factors 3 and 4 are of equal importance):

FACTOR 1 – Technical Proposal and Specifications (35% of overall rating) Offeror’s proposal shall meet or exceed the technical specifications as indicated in the Statement of Work. The proposal shall contain adequate design details, construction, measurements, material and trim details, finish, and any other information necessary for the government to determine compliance with the technical specifications. Catalogues should be included in such proposal. The offeror must also address and explain its technical approach for completing the work in accordance with the Statement of Work.

FACTOR 2 – Experience (25% of overall rating) Offeror’s proposal must clearly demonstrate experience and proven capabilities providing the specified furniture, designing the layout and configurations, and proper on-site installation. Offeror shall include any lessons learned and/or industry best practices.

FACTOR 3 – Delivery Times and Proposed Workplan (20% of overall rating) Offeror’s proposal must include delivery times and projected milestones of completion of the project for each site included in the Statement of Work. In addition, the vendor shall propose a comprehensive Work Plan to include, at a minimum, estimated furniture production and delivery dates, obtaining proper permits and clearances as applicable, estimated assembly timeframes, installation timeframes, and final inspections.

FACTOR 4 – Warranty (20% of overall rating) Offeror’s proposal must clearly state all specific warranty details (what is covered, duration of coverage, instructions and requirements for submitting a claim, etc.). This includes warranties for components, manufacturing defects, and the installation/workmanship.

TECHNICAL RATING

The following technical ratings will be assigned to each technical factor:

Rating Description

PAST PERFORMANCE

Offeror’s proposal shall include actual past performance of the same or similar requirement (providing freestanding structures and other similar furniture, designing the layout and configurations, proper on-site installation). Offeror to provide 3 examples of such performance completed within the last five (5) years.

For the purpose of evaluating past performance, the Government will consider the collective past performance of the proposed contract team. For evaluation purposes, the proposed contract team includes the Prime Offeror, joint venture partner, and major subcontractor(s), if applicable. For the purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that will likely perform more than 15% of the required effort.

(a) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent (within the last three years) and relevant record of performance in delivering services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

(b) The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, past performance must not be older than three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. In determining relevancy for past performance references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, to be performed under this contract by offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose performance is being reviewed and evaluated.

The Government will use the following definitions when assessing the relevancy of past performance references. With respect to relevancy, the Government will consider more relevant Past Performance to be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance evaluation than Past Performance of lesser relevance.

(b) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

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 offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be rated as “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”.

(c) In determining the rating for the past performance evaluation factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the Government's requirement. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired under this solicitation. The second aspect of past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed on the contracts.

(1) Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(2) Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. Consideration will be given to similarity of services. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing past performance:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY CONSIDERATIONS

Rating Definition Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved comparable scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

PRICE EVALUATION

(a) The Government will evaluate price for award purposes by adding the total price for proposed cost as proposed in the Offerors Cost/Price Proposal (see attached Pricing Schedule).