EVAL FACTORS_2026_FIRE SPRINKLER INSPECTION.pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD

This award selection will be conducted using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures.

To be eligible for award, a proposal must meet all technical requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and include all information required. All non-price evaluation factors must be rated at "ACCEPTABLE" in order to be eligible for award. An "UNACCEPTABLE" rating in any factor will result in the proposal being rated "UNACCEPTABLE" unless corrected through discussions. A proposal rating of "UNACCEPTABLE" makes a proposal ineligible for award. Since the LPTA methodology prohibits trade-offs, all evaluation factors and sub-factors are equally important. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non- price factors.

A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Proposed Price (TPP) provided by the offeror on the price schedule sheet. Next, an evaluation of each factor and, subsequently, the overall proposal will be performed beginning with the lowest priced proposal. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-price factors. The Government intends to award a contract without conducting discussions; therefore, the initial proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and should contain the best offer from a technical and price perspective.

Technical Factor 1 – Past Performance

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors do not need to provide any information under this factor as the US Government will base the evaluation on all INTERIM and FINAL Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) that are recent and relevant. The CPARs will be retrieved from official US Government sources, including, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System. If no relevant past performance history is available for your SAM UEI number, you may choose to utilize Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form which will be used for evaluation. All performance ratings shall be considered for contracts ongoing or completed within the past 2 years from the date proposals are due. The Government reserves the right to evaluate past performance information on proposals submitted in response to this solicitation from any available source.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

Recency:

For the purposes of this solicitation, a past performance record is recent if the CPAR final date of assessment listed in the “Period of Performance Being Assessed” block is within the 24 month period preceding the proposal due date.

Relevancy:

For the purposes of this solicitation, a past performance record is relevant if the CPAR (to include PPQs if applicable) business sectors listed as “Services ”.

In order to receive an "acceptable" rating for this factor, an Offer's recent and relevant CPARs (to include PPQs if applicable) must NOT include one or more INTERIM and/or FINAL CPARs with a rating of "UNSATISFACTORY" in one or more categories OR one or more INTERIM and/or FINAL CPARs with a rating of "MARGINAL" in two or more categories. If an Offeror has one or more CPARs with a rating of "UNSATISFACTORY" in one or more categories OR one or more CPARs with a rating of "MARGINAL" in two or more categories, the Offeror's past performance will be evaluated as

"UNACCEPTABLE".

In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and 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. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.” An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating for a single factor will result in the Offeror’s entire proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE”.

Technical Factor 2 – Specialized Experience Submission Requirements

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Proposals, which merely offer a statement to conduct/provide services in accordance with the requirements in the Governments SOW, will not be eligible for award. Offerors shall submit recent, relevant experience on similar services. Experience will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s demonstration of similar, relevant, and recent services within the scope of this solicitation for services as described in this solicitation.

1. For the purposes of this factor, “Relevant” is defined as experience with managing service contracts for healthcare facilities. “Recent” is defined as being at least 75% complete or completed within the past seven (7) years preceding the date proposals are due.

2. If any of the information required is not included in the form then the contractor may be considered non-responsive and evaluated as “UNACCEPTABLE.”

The offeror must submit an example report that covers all of the requirements listed in Section 6:

Records/Data of the SOW.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

Evaluation of this factor will be an assessment of the offeror’s specialized experience on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To achieve an Acceptable rating, at least two (2) relevant service contracts submitted must be at least 75% complete or completed within the preceding seven (7) years from the date of proposals and must be determined to be relevant in similar size, scope and complexity to the requirements described in this solicitation. All submitted contracts shall be services performed in healthcare environments. Any contracts submitted in excess of five (5) will not be considered.

Failure to address any of the required bullets as stated in Technical Factor 2: Specialized Experience Submission Requirements may result in an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award.

The example report will be compared to the information required in Section 6: Records/Data and Appendix B and C of the SOW. Failure to provide a report that includes all of the required information will result in and “UNACCEPTABLE” rating.

Technical Factor 3 – Management

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors shall submit a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and names of the personnel, their firm, their job/positions title within the organization, highlighting the key personnel.

* Offerors must submit proof of relevant certification (e.g., appropriate credentials from a certifying organization, such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 101, 99, 13, 25, 72), NFPA ITM and WBITM certification (NFPA 25), and National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) Level II or III certification in "Inspection and Testing of Water-Based Systems”.

as described in Section 4: Contractor Responsibilities of the SOW.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

Evaluation of this factor will be an assessment of the offeror’s key personnel organization chart and key personnel certifications on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. If an organizational chart is not provided or the personnel certifications do not comply with the requirements, this factor will receive an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating.

Factor 4 – Price

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Completed Price Schedule Sheet

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate price based on the total proposed price calculated as the sum of bid item 0001 Base Year, item 0002 Option Year 1, item 0003 Option Year 2, item 0004 Option Year 3 and item 0005 Option Year 3 that includes Contract cost, Subcontractor cost, Overhead and Profit. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

Note: A price that is found to be either unreasonably high or unrealistically low in relation to the proposed work may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the overall proposal being considered unacceptable.

INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors.

Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. However, The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

All proposals must be submitted by February 27, 2026 via email to Erin.Doering@ihs.gov.

mailto:Erin.Doering@ihs.gov