Evaluation Factors for Award - HT001426QE048.docx

Addenda to Clause 52.212-2

Evaluation – Commercial Items

BASIS FOR AWARD. The Government will award a contract/purchase order resulting from this solicitation to the responsible vendor whose quotation conforming to this solicitation’s requirements is determined to be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The Government will utilize the following evaluation criteria to identify the best value quotation for award: Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Experience Factor 3 – Price

A trade-off analysis between technical approach, experience, and price will be utilized to determine which quotation represents the best value to the Government. Award may be made to other than the lowest price quotation.

Factor 1 – Technical approach:

The information provided by the offeror is a significant factor in the Government’s determination of technical acceptability as it pertains to the offeror’s ability to operate the Hospital Communications Support as depicted in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information should be clearly marked.

The technical information shall include the company’s name, address, individual names, CAGE Code, and DUNS number on the first page.

EVALUATION STANDARDS TECHNICAL:

Acceptable: Quote clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and the PWS.

Unacceptable: Quote does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and the PWS.

Factor 2: Experience:

Recent and relevant past performance information will be considered. The Government will focus its inquiries on the vendor’s record of performance on relevant and recent prior contracts. The Determination of relevancy includes a consideration of recent contracts which are similar in scope, type of work, and price to this solicitation’s requirements. The vendor’s record of performance will be evaluated for quality of services, timeliness of services, business relations, and other considerations.

EVALUATION STANDARDS EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE:

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

Unacceptable: Based on the Vendor’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Vendor will successfully perform the required effort, or the vendor’s performance record is unknown.

In the case of a vendor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the vendor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the vendor shall be determined to have unknow past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Neutral”.

Factor 3: Price:

a. The Vendor’s total price will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government may use the price analysis techniques and procedures in FAR 15.404-1(b). Price will not be adjectively rated. To be eligible for award, a vendor’s price must be deemed to be fair and reasonable. A comparison of the grand total prices proposed by each offeror will be used as the basis for determining the price competition.

b. Options. The Government will evaluate quotations for award purposes by adding the total price for all Option periods of performance to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of Option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise the Option(s).

(End of Evaluation – Commercial Items)