Technical Evaluation Factor_ISWM.pdf
PDF 152 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Integrated Solid Waste Management for Hill AFB
- Solicitation number
- FA820126Q0026
About this file
This is a source selection evaluation document for an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Service Contract, completed by evaluator Anna M. Robinson under FAR 2.101 and 3.104 guidelines for source selection information.
The evaluation template addresses Volume I - Technical Acceptability across three main factors. Factor One: Technical Work Plan requires proposals to describe labor and supervision, equipment, tools, materials, vehicles, and other services necessary to meet contract requirements; outline the approach to accomplishing work including processes, schedules, inspection frequency, and refuse disposal procedures; and demonstrate adequate understanding of requirements with convincing rationale for meeting essential requirements without schedule disruption or cost increases. Factor Two: Standards requires contractors to describe capability to perform to contract standards and comply with local, state, and federal regulations as specified in the Performance Work Statement dated 5 August 2026, with emphasis on safety, sanitation, and customer service. Factor Three: Capability requires contractors to list and describe capability to provide required containers, compactors, equipment, storage, emergency services, and special event services; handle recyclable materials, perform maintenance, and provide personal protective equipment; and demonstrate adequate understanding of requirements with convincing rationale for meeting essential requirements. Each evaluation criterion is structured with separate checkboxes for Acceptable and Unacceptable determinations, with designated spaces for evaluator comments explaining the location in the proposal where criteria are addressed or identifying which FAR provisions or PWS paragraphs were not adequately addressed.
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 for
Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Service Contract
Contractor: Name of Evaluator: Anna Robinson
Volume I - Technical Acceptability
Factor One: Technical
Sub-Factor One: Work Plan - Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following as required in
FAR 52.212-1 paragraph 3.2.1.1, FAR 52.212-2 paragraph 2.2.1, and the PWS dated 5 August 2026 paragraph 1, 2, 3, and 4 with all subparagraphs:
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Why: Where in the Proposal (i.e. page, paragraph, throughout, etc.)?
OR
Why Not: What part of FAR 52.212-1 - Instruction to Offeror (ITO) - Addendum, FAR 52.212-2
Evaluation - Commercial Item Evaluation Factors for Award Addendum, PWS, etc. did the proposal not fully address?
A. Describes the labor, including supervision. Describes the equipment, tools, materials, and vehicles. Describes the other equipment, items, and services it will provide to adequately meet contract requirements.
Comments:
B. Describes approach to accomplishing the work, including processes, schedules, frequency of inspections, and proper disposal of all refuse. Describes the plan to ensure the safety of Government property and personnel as well as contractor employees.
C. Indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements. Provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet all the essential requirements with little potential for schedule disruption, increased cost, or degradation of performance.
Comments:
Sub-Factor Two: Standards - Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following as required in
FAR 52.212-1 paragraph 3.2.1.2, FAR 52.212-2 paragraph 2.2.2, and the PWS dated 5 August 2026 paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 with all subparagraphs:
OR
Why Not: What part of FAR 52.212-1 - Instruction to Offeror (ITO) - Addendum, FAR 52.212-2
Evaluation - Commercial Item Evaluation Factors for Award Addendum, PWS, etc. did the proposal not fully address?
A. Describes the capability to perform to the standards in the contract as well as local, state, and federal regulations and others as describes in the PWS paragraph 1. Has focus on safety, sanitation, and customer service.
B. Indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements. Provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet all the essential requirements with little potential for schedule disruption, increased cost, or degradation of performance.
Comments:
Sub-Factor Three: Capability - Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included the following as required in
FAR 52.212-1 paragraph 3.2.1.3, FAR 52.212-2 paragraph 2.2.3, and the PWS dated 5 August 2026 paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 with all subparagraphs:
OR
Why Not: What part of FAR 52.212-1 - Instruction to Offeror (ITO) - Addendum, FAR 52.212-2
Evaluation - Commercial Item Evaluation Factors for Award Addendum, PWS, etc. did the proposal not fully address?
A. Lists and describes its capability to provide: all required types of containers, compactors, or other equipment; storage;
emergency services; and special events.
Comments:
B. Lists and describes its capability to: handle recyclable materials; perform maintenance; and provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to adequately service the installations.
Comments:
C. Indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements. Provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet all the essential requirements with little potential for schedule disruption, increased cost, or degradation of performance.
Evaluator Signature: Anna M. Robinson Acceptable Unacceptable Comments in general:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .