Attachment_5,_Evaluation_Plan_signed.pdf

Attachment 5, Evaluation Plan

Evaluation Plan For Solicitation No. F17PS00199

Interpretive Exhibits and Services for the Southwest Region IDIQ contract

For this project, it is the Government’s intent to award three MATOCs (Multiple Award Task Order Contracts) to the responsible offerors whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors listed below:

Factor 1: Technical and Past Performance Factor 2: Price

Factor 1, Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 2, Price.

Factor 1 will be evaluated using the criteria and standards described below by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC). Factor 2 will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer. After Factor 1 and Factor 2 have been evaluated the determination of best value to the Government will be made by the Contracting Officer.

1. Factor 1: Comprises of two sub-factors - Technical (items a-h) and Past Performance (item i).

Sub- factor Technical:

Proposal submittals shall demonstrate contractor ability to perform items a-h. Contractors shall demonstrate ability with the inclusion of production proofs or pictures of a minimum of at least three interpretive exhibit projects completed within the past 3 years by the offeror or the offeror’s company. Pictures or production proofs will be of sufficient quality to show the offeror’s use of design and layout principles and the integration of color, artwork or illustration, texture, line, shape, text type, and other visual elements. Examples that are submitted for consideration should illustrate designs sensitive to the needs of diverse age, nationality and impairment populations as well as the creative use of interactive elements to engage all visitors with the messages. Photos should be submitted that show casework details and subsequent quality.

a. Demonstrate ability to produce interpretive exhibits that integrate text and graphics and other media that are engaging, concise, accurate, and relevant and thought provoking, and effectively use a hierarchy of message development.

b. Demonstrate ability to produce exhibits that provide a reasonable level of accessibility for persons with visual, hearing, mental and mobility impairments, and children and seniors.

Attachment 4, Evaluation Plan

c. Demonstrate ability to produce interpretive exhibit designs incorporating innovative approaches to promote visitor interaction with the exhibit messages and the ability to fabricate the design intent.

d. Provide sample text composed by person or persons writing the text on this contract. Examples of the text writer’s work showing creativity, quality and appropriate comprehension level to a wide-ranging audience in the integration of text and interpretive design principles.

e. Provide sample work, by the graphics designer working on this contract, of artwork and/or illustrations that are scientifically accurate, detailed, and correct.

f. Demonstrate ability to produce interpretive exhibits that are durable and perform well in the visitor center environment and outdoor education area. Offerors shall submit a statement providing a written warranty for the finished interpretive exhibits covering audio/visual electronic failure, and/or other deterioration of the fabrication medium for a period of not less than 12 months. Offeror shall submit a written warranty to cover fading, delamination, manufacturing defects of exhibit panels for a period of not less than 10 years. Also, demonstrate ability to provide customer service and support during the exhibit’s warranty period and include a parts and supplier list.

h. Demonstrate ability to maintain and rehabilitate exhibits. Provide a statement of ability and readiness to maintain and repair exhibits.

Maintenance/Repair of Exhibits includes but is not limited to: cleaning, polishing and refurbishment of taxidermy and dioramas, upgrading or troubleshooting computer and other audio-visual interactives, maintenance and repair of mechanical interactives and interpretive panels. Touch up painting and repair of casework, displays, dioramas and panels, as well as cleaning and stabilization of barriers, Plexiglas and background artwork. The work may include replacement of worn/broken exhibit components, minor electrical repair and upgrading of lighting or sound devices.

Items a-h will be evaluated and given an Adjective Rating as defined below:

Adjective Rating

Parameter

Description

Exceeds Exceeds performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the government.

Acceptable Meets performance or capability requirements.

Unacceptable Fails to meet performance or capability requirements.

Sub-factor Past Performance:

i. Past Performance. Provide three references that can verify the offeror’s qualifications and ability to perform on projects similar in nature and scope. Contractor shall complete attachment 3, Past and Present Performance Survey. References shall be recent, within the last three years, and relevant to the scope of work for this contract.

Item i will be evaluated and assigned a Past Performance Confidence Rating

a) The past performance confidence assessment represents the evaluation of an offeror’s past and present work record to determine the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform as proposed. The government will assess relevant and recent performance information on all offers based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror (past and present performance survey, attachment 3. The Government may or may not contact references.) and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

The past performance assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence rating from the below table.

1. No Confidence: Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

2. Little Confidence: Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

3. Unknown Confidence: No performance record identifiable.

4. Confidence: Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

5. Significant Confidence: Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has significant confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

6. High Confidence: Based on the offeror's performance record, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

3. Factor 2: Price: Submittal of Attachment 3, Schedule of Services. The price evaluation will assess the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed hourly rates for the base period and all option periods. The government may also elect to assess the realism of the proposed price where an offeror’s proposed rates are deemed too low to support successful performance.

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 in terms of Technical Capability, Past Performance and price.

Award will be made on a competitive basis utilizing the best value trade-off method where award will be made based on Technical Capability, Past Performance and Price.

For proposals determined to be responsive, a trade-off may be made between Technical Capability, Past Performance and Price. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers in the following order of importance.

• Technical Capability

• Past Performance

• Price

Basis for Award Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to price

Reviewed and Approved by:

Contracting Officer Date

05/01/2017