ATTACHMENT_4_-_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS

HOME INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEM

DJM-15-A32-R-0002

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. TECHNICAL

2. PAST PERFORMANCE

3. PRICE

Technical and Past Performance are equal to each other and when combined, are approximately equal to price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) 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. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors’ past performance history, price, and technical will be evaluated. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations, and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government intends to award to the responsible Contractor whose offer is the most advantageous to the Government. Offers will be evaluated on these factors:

A. Technical Approach. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical approach by assigning ratings of Substantial, Acceptable, or Unacceptable based on these factors:

1. Demonstrate a national coverage area, including all applicable U.S. Territories.

2. Demonstrate how the processes for coordinating and working with the predecessor vendor will result in an efficient and timely reconfiguration of all systems for transfer of connectivity and monitoring of alarm signals and cellular communications for approximately 1,600 existing systems.

3. Demonstrate how the program management team will provide leadership and management to:

ATTACHMENT 4

DJM-15-A32-R-0002

• Ensure all personnel performing any functions under this contract have successfully completed a vendor initiated security background check to preclude the assignment of any individual who pose a potential or actual threat to the government due to past illegal, unlawful or inappropriate behavior.

• Ensure proficiency of all personnel assigned to work under this contract.

• Ensure appropriate customer service for all participants of the HIDS program.

• Maintain internal controls focused on quality and customer service.

• Ensure site surveys are scheduled and conducted within contractual requirements.

• Ensure system installations are scheduled and conducted within contractual requirements.

• Ensure installation invoicing is accurately prepared and submitted within contractual requirements.

• Ensure protocols are established and maintained to safeguard the management of information related to this contract and in accordance with the SOW section 19.0.

4. Demonstrate a full understanding of and the ability to track and report each monthly and/or weekly deliverable as required in the SOW, to include:

• Proposed monthly monitoring reports ensuring all accounts are successfully communicating with the monitoring center and failed communications are identified and corrected as contractually required.

• Proposed monthly alarm activity report to monitor alarm activity that resulted in local police dispatch and provide outcome of the alarm condition.

• Proposed monthly maintenance reports to continuously improve quality while controlling costs.

• Proposed weekly alarm activity report to monitor alarm activity resulting in police and or fire department dispatches.

5. Demonstrate a proficient training plan detailing:

• How the offeror's training methods will be measured and used by the program management team to maintain personnel proficiency as necessary to fulfill all contract requirements.

• Performance Standards and how the methods of measurement for each of the stated standards will interface with training, personnel proficiency, customer service and internal controls.

Please note: the offeror’s proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends the meet the needs of the Government’s requirements.

Technical Acceptability will be evaluated in accordance with the following Table:

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

RATING DESCRIPTION

SUBSTANTIAL The technical proposal offers above the requirements of the SOW. The Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

ACCEPTABLE The technical proposal offers the minimal requirements of the SOW. The Government has a moderate expectation that the offeror will successfully perform with required effort.

DJM-15-A32-R-0002

UNACCEPTABLE The technical proposal does not offer minimal requirements of the SOW.

The Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

B. Past Performance. The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant present/past performance is defined as effort involving a similar scope and similar magnitude of effort and complexity as this solicitation requires. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offerors performance record is so limited that no assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Neutral”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with the following Table:

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTORS

RATING DESCRIPTION

SUBSTANTIAL The Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

ACCEPTABLE The Government has a moderate expectation that the offeror will successfully perform with required effort.

UNACCEPTABLE The Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

C. Price Evaluation. Next, the Government shall rank all technically Acceptable offers by price, including option years. An offerors proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Attachment 2_Pricing Schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price.

D. Other Notifications. An offeror receiving an “Unacceptable” rating in any factor will not be considered for award regardless of ratings in other factors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

(end addendum)