Attachment_4_-_Evaluation_Factors_-_Basewide_Elevator_Maintenance.pdf

FA8601-14-R-0020

Evaluation Factors

Attachment 4

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. The Government will use FAR 12.602 Streamlined Evaluation of Offers vs. FAR 15.3 Source Selection to evaluate offers submitted in response to the solicitation. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are

Technical, Past Performance and Price, as expounded below. All evaluation factors are equal in importance;

however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, either the Technical or Past Performance factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable.” The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on both the Technical and Past

Performance evaluation factors; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received.

a. Factor 1 - Technical: Pursuant to evaluation of all subfactors and elements hereunder, the

Technical factor will receive an overall rating of either “Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” using the rating and descriptions in the table below:

Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

If a contractor receives an Unacceptable for any Technical subfactor, it may render them

Unacceptable as an overall rating for Factor 1 - Technical.

Subfactor 1 – Quality Control Plan (QCP) (PWS Paragraph 8.1)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s approach for ensuring performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed QCP that is likely to ensure that performance will be in accordance with (IAW) the standards in the

PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. identification of personnel responsible for quality control;

2. a description of the offeror’s inspection system with types and frequencies of inspection to be conducted and personnel responsible for conducting inspections;

3. a description of key control with a sample key control log;

4. a system for preventing the occurrence or recurrence of deficiencies; and

5. a description of how inspections will be documented with sample inspections records for each type of inspection to be conducted.

Subfactor 2 – Administration/Office Support (PWS Paragraph 1.1)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide all administration/office support requirements for the life of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed description of how they will provide all administration/office support for the life of this contract to include functions such as invoicing and reporting.

Subfactor 3 – Maintenance Control Plan (MCP) (PWS Paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to develop and submit to the

Government an annual written MCP for each VTE within 60 days after contract award to cover the basic contract and any option periods. The contractor shall perform inspections and maintenance of all VTE in accordance with the MCP.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed MCP that is likely to ensure that inspections and maintenance will be performed IAW the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. A description of required inspections, timelines for inspections, and maintenance to be performed

2. A description for creating and maintaining a MCP to ensure reliable and continuous safe operation of all VTE

3. Sample computer-generated reports of inspections

Subfactor 4 – Repair Service Calls (PWS Paragraphs 5.1.2 and 5.2.2)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide service calls

(routine and emergency) under the full maintenance service agreement at no additional charge.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed description of how you will achieve successful completion of all service calls within the specified time frames in the PWS paragraphs 5.1.2 and 5.2.2)

b. Factor 2 – Past Performance Past Performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable” basis using the ratings and descriptions in the table below:

Rating Description

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, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

There are two aspects of the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/recent record of performance is relevant to the effort to be acquired. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is the “Performance Quality Assessment” to determine how well the contractor performed on present/recent relevant efforts. In conducting the Past

Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining

Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those efforts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the

Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will specifically be given to the total number and types of elevators maintained at any given point in the last 5 years (example: ABC Elevator Co.

maintained 2,000 elevators on various contracts nationwide from Jan 2012-Dec 2012. The 2,000 elevators maintained consisted of hydraulic and traction elevators only). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the

Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The

Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

Relevant

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

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR

52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23P123_5649 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23b522199 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23b522199 effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description

Satisfactory

During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE Quality and/or performance information is not available.

c. Factor 3 – Subcontracting Plan: For other than Small Business offerors, the subcontracting plan will be evaluated to determine if it includes all of the content prescribed in paragraph (d) of

FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DEVIATION 2013-O0014) and DFARS

252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) (Deviation 2013-O0014).

d. Factor 4 - Price: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Attachment 3—Additional Instructions to

Offerors.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as:

(i) The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs 0001 through 4004 for the base performance period and option periods I through IV; and

(ii) To account for the maximum six-month extension possible under the clause at FAR

52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the Government will take the proposed price of the final option period (CLINS 0001 through 4004), prorate it to a six-month value, and add that amount to the sum of all CLINS (base performance period and option periods I through IV). The resulting amount will be the TEP. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The spreadsheet below illustrates calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. The spreadsheet is provided for illustration purposes only. Prices reflected in the spreadsheet are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this solicitation or any other solicitation for the same or similar requirements.

PERIOD OF

PERFORMANCE

(POP)

POP LENGTH CLINS NOTIONAL

PROPOSED

PRICE

BASE 12 MONTHS 0001-0004 $100,000.00

OPTION I 12 MONTHS 1001-1004 $103,000.00

OPTION II 12 MONTHS 2001-2004 $106,090.00

OPTION III 12 MONTHS 3001-3004 $109,272.70

OPTION IV 12 MONTHS 4001-4004 $112,550.88

Total Proposed Price for Base Period & Options I thru IV $530,913.58

Est Value of 6-Mo Option to Extend IAW FAR52.217-8 $56,275.44

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP) $587,189.02

2. Evaluation Process:

(a) The Government will initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The

Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.

(b) If pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical, Past Performance, or Subcontracting

Plan factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, and in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable; the Contracting Officer (CO) may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.

(c) For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical, Past Performance, or

Subcontracting Plan factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable.”

At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical, Past Performance, or Subcontracting Plan factor is rated

“Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal will be considered final. The entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

(d) For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the

Technical, Past Performance, or Subcontracting Plan factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

3. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)