Attachment 05 - Evaluation of Offers.pdf

Attachment 4 - FA441723Q0020

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 - EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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.

b. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers in the following relative order of importance:

1. Technical Capability

a. Sub-Factor 1: Installation Plan

b. Sub-Factor 2: Repeater Interoperability

c. Sub-Factor 3: Warranty Response Time

2. Price

c. Technical capability - The government will start the evaluation with the lowest priced proposal to determine if the solution is suitable to meet SOW requirements and is likely to result in the effort meeting Government objectives as stated in the SOW. The technical proposal will be evaluated and an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating will be assigned in accordance with Table 1.0 below. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award. If the lowest priced offeror is judged to have an “Acceptable” rating, that offer will be accepted and the evaluation process stops.

Table 1.0 – Technical Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of all sub-factors and is complete and sufficiently documented, detailing the elements of work to be performed, containing no exceptions to the SOW.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of all subfactors and/or is incomplete and/or is insufficiently documented and/or contains exceptions to the SOW.

(1) Sub Factor 1 – Installation Plan:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s installation plan for the corresponding project and will assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in Table 1.1 below, as a means of ensuring the offeror possesses the capability, depth, and understanding to be successful in performing the requirements of the SOW. The technical proposal must include a narrative describing how SOW requirements will be achieved. If the offeror does not rate “Acceptable”, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will not be considered for award of the contract. The following definitions will be used in making the determinations and assigning the rating:

Attachment 4 - FA441723Q0020

Table 1.1 – Technical Ratings – SUBFACTOR 1 – Installation Plan

Rating Description

Acceptable Specific detail shall be provided to demonstrate the following criteria is satisfied:

a. A detailed design that demonstrates a clear understanding of objectives and all aspects of the SOW are clearly understood.

b. List of materials (LOM), including the material specifications and the lead times for the materials IAW SOW Section 3, Table 1, and its subparagraphs.

c. A description of the processes, techniques, and time schedule for gathering data, testing installed equipment, and demonstration of full system operation. Proper resolutions of unsatisfactory test results and timeline for correcting any discrepancies and deficiencies IAW SOW Paragraphs 3.9 and IAW CDRL A005.

d. Description of how the Offeror will adhere to local, federal and state, codes/standards/guidance and specifications used to implement this project/task order IAW SOW Paragraph 1.0.1. and 5.1. Government Applicable Documents and Standards.

Unacceptable Projects submitted do not meet one or more of the criteria established above.

(2) Sub Factor 2 – Repeater Interoperability Per the SOW, Paragraph 1. Scope - The replacement GV system shall be capable of communicating over digital two-way conventional UHF radio communications links via the existing Government Furnish Equipment (GFE) Motorola ASTRO GTR8000 repeater and being integrated with the Blackberry AtHoc Net-centric Network Alerting System (NCAS) via the existing GFE IP Integration Module (IIM) to allow interoperability and remote activation.

(3) Sub Factor 3 – Warranty Call Response

The Offeror shall describe the warranty coverage of the installed system detailing equipment warranty periods and warranty of workmanship for the installed system.

Price - While price will not be evaluated in terms of acceptable/unacceptable, pricing will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as proposed. Pricing will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 13.106-3 to determine fair and reasonable pricing. The Government may evaluate any supporting information provided by the offeror explaining variances in unit prices that appear unbalanced. Offers determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that the imbalance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(End of Addendum)

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 - EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS