Evaluation Factors - Addendum 2.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. The Government will use FAR 12.602 Streamlined Evaluation of Offers and FAR Part 13.5 Simplified Acquisition Procedures vs. FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation.

The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical and Price, as expounded below. All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the Technical factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable.” The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical evaluation factor; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

a. Technical: Proposal must clearly demonstrate that the offeror is capable of meeting all of the performance standards specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Subfactor 1- The Artifact Protection Plan found in the Performance Work Statement (paragraph

7.0 of the PWS) will be evaluated on a pass fail basis. One plan will not be rated stronger than another, but evaluated on completeness and its ability to protect the artifacts.

Measure of Merit: The Artifact Protection Plan is acceptable when: it demonstrates a comprehensive approach to protecting the artifacts in the museum IAW with paragraph

7.0 located within the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Subfactor 2- Licenses, insurance and certificates held by the contractor (subcontractor) to prove they have the qualifications and abilities to perform under this contract.

- Riggers who are accredited by ESTA “Entertainment Services and Technology Association.”

- Lighting Control equipment supplier shall utilize ETC Factory Authorized and Accredited

Service Providers.

- The Electrical Contractor shall be licensed by the State of Ohio utilizing licensed electricians for this project.

Measure of Merit: A licensing package is acceptable when: it contains all professional licenses held be the contractor, insurance attained by the contractor and other such certifications that demonstrate the contractor’s ability to perform this contract IAW paragraph 13.0 of the PWS.

b. Prior Experience: Describe the Theatrical Lighting Installation & Upgrade services the offeror is currently providing or has provided within the past five years of the issue date of the solicitation

Measure of Merit: Prior experience is acceptable when:

- The services of theatrical lighting installation and upgrades are currently being provided, or have been provided on at least one similar project where electrical, rigging, and theatrical controls have been designed and installed to complete a system; and

- - The Theatrical Lighting Installation & Upgrade services is/was comparable to the services described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS)

c. Price: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Appendix 1—Additional Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The base year and the option(s) will be evaluated separately for price fair and reasonable. The Government will add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The contract(s) with the lowest TEP will be considered for award.

2. Evaluation Process:

(a) The Government will initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

(b) If pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the

Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, and in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable; the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

(c) For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal will be considered final. The entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

(d) For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

3. 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), unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.