Attachment_2_Instructions_and_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

Attachment 1

INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

Joint Base Charleston Dorm Furniture

FA4418-18-Q-0049

EVALUATION CRITERIA - BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive acquisition in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. (Failure to meet a requirement may result in the removal from competition or an offer may not be considered). Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation. Initially offers shall be ranked according to price. Offerors shall submit pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of their proposed prices for CLIN 0001-CLIN 0003. The pricing information submitted should fully support the PWS requirements for each major functional element specified in the PWS. A breakdown should be provided which shows parts and equipment, labor categories, labor rates and position descriptions. Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations, and the total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation.

Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance.

B. Past Performance. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFQ.

Beginning with the lowest priced offeror, the contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government may complete Past Performance Questionnaires (after receipt of proposals) with references provided by the offeror or found through other sources.

Recent performance includes projects performed within the last three years. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving protective coating maintenance (including lead abatement) that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The contractor’s past performance will be rated as follows:

1. Very Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2. Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3. Somewhat Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4. Not Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

C. Performance Confidence Assessment. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence, as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past performance history shall be assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

D. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFQ.

E. If the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

F. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated.

G. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Information Regarding Submission of Past Performance Questionnaires: Offeror’s references should be instructed to complete the past performance questionnaire and send responses directly to the individual listed below no later than 2:00 PM EST, 21 August 2018. Questionnaires can be faxed, e-mailed or mailed to Victor McKinnon at 843-963-7744 (fax) or victor.mckinnon@us.af.mil or mailed to: 628 CONS/LGCA Attention: Victor McKinnon 101 E.

Hill Blvd, JB CHS, SC 29404.