3. Amendm-01 - Atch 4 ReplPg 6.pdf

Attachment 4, Applicable Clauses and Provisions Solicitation FA5613-12-R-0001

TECHNICAL CRITERIA RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors must receive “Acceptable” rating for each subfactor to receive an overall “Acceptable” rating in the technical evaluation. In the event one or more subfactors receive an “Unacceptable” rating, the proposal will receive an overall “Unacceptable” rating in the technical evaluation.

(i) Subfactor 1: Contractor Quality Control Plan (QCP): The QCP will be evaluated for the offeror’s approach to ensure maintenance and repair services are performed IAW standard German commercial practices and IAW German local, state or federal applicable standards and codes and manufacturer’s recommendations. In addition it will be evaluated on the procedures developed to identify and prevent defective services from recurring.

As a minimum, the contractor shall develop quality control procedures that address the areas identified in Paragraph 2, Services Summary.

(ii) Subfactor 2: Past Experience: The submitted evidence will be evaluated on the evidence of at least one year of contract performance (or the past experience of a joint venture partner, key subcontractor, or instances where the offeror performed as a key subcontractor) during the previous 3 years, where the offeror is/was responsible for performing services in Germany same or similar to the workload data identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). to those identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) on at least 75% of the quantity of elevators and escalators as required in this solicitation.

FACTOR 3 – Past Performance. Past Performance will be evaluated based on subjective assessment of how well the offeror performed on recent and relevant work, as outlined in Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212-1, paragraph (b)(10). For the purpose of assessing acceptable performance, ratings S (Satisfactory), G (Good) and E (Exceptional) assigned on the PPQs will be considered “Acceptable”. M (Marginal) and U (Unsatisfactory) will be considered “Unacceptable”. The rating is based upon offeror-provided references, received PPQs, or information obtained by the Government from any other sources of past performance information. Offeror must receive “Acceptable” rating to receive an award, as follows:

PAST PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a) (2) (iv)). Therefore,