Attachment_2_Evaluation_Factors_PDF.pdf

FA8601-14-R-0021

Attachment 2

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 the Technical 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.

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 meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

Subfactor 1 – Quality Control Plan (QCP) (PWS Paragraphs 1.5 and 1.7.3)

Description: This subfactor 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 subfactor is met when the offeror provides a detailed QCP that is likely to ensure that performance will be IAW the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. identification of personnel responsible for the quality control plan;

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 clear description of key control procedures;

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: Computer/Office Support (PWS Paragraph 1.1.1.)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide all hardware/software/office equipment requirements IAW the contract.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror defines and lists all computer and office equipment that will be furnished listed in PWS Paragraph 1.1.1, clearly demonstrating an understanding of and a likelihood of the ability to provide the necessary requirements.

Subfactor 3: Inventory and Design Support (PWS 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.4)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to deliver up-to-date automated inventory and control, sample reports, and computer-aided design IAW the conditions of the contract.

Element 1: Automated Inventory and Control (PWS Paragraph 1.1.2)

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a sample report that includes all of the information specified in PWS paragraph 1.1.2 and that clearly demonstrates the ability of the contractor's software to accurately track and account for inventory during all phases of design and as assets are moved into and out of the warehouse.

Element 2: Sample Computer-Generated Reports (PWS Paragraph 1.1.3)

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides sample furniture layouts to include basic floor plan, panel and electrical layouts IAW the PWS, and sample computer-generated reports (automated take-offs) to demonstrate that the software’s automated take-off capability and design timeliness meets the minimum requirements of the PWS.

Element 3: Proposed Design Timelines (PWS Paragraph 1.2.4)

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides complete, clear design timelines to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS and demonstrates understanding of these requirements.

Subfactor 4: Furniture Task Support (PWS Paragraphs as noted below)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide disassembly/assembly/reassembly/movable wall and associated parts installation and parts/products transportation IAW the terms of the PWS.

Element 1: Experience/Size of Crews Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide the appropriate mix of labor to perform disassembly/assembly/reassembly of complete workstations or systems/modular furniture components, including freestanding furniture and to evaluate the offeror’s ability to accomplish services by qualified technicians to perform the functions listed in accordance with PWS Paragraph 1.3.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly provides detailed information on the number, skill sets, experience, and certifications of the crew, which is likely to ensure an adequate number of personnel with adequate skills/certifications who are available consistently to perform all contract requirements.

Element 2: Response Capability/Timeline

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to perform routine and emergency repairs IAW the requirements of PWS Paragraph 1.3.2.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the understanding and capability of the requirement, making it likely they will respond to all repairs within the timeframes stated in the PWS.

Element 3: Certified Electrician

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a qualified, certified electrician in accordance with the requirements of PWS Paragraph 1.9.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the understanding and capability to provide proof of access to MECA certified electricians, per the requirements of the PWS.

Element 4: Certified Plumber

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a qualified, certified plumber in accordance with the requirements of the PWS Paragraph 1.9.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the understanding and capability to provide proof of access to plumbers that are licensed by the state of Ohio and possess documentation of completion of the latest edition of the National Plumbing Code, per the requirements of the PWS.

Element 5: Transportation

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to demonstrate they have the necessary equipment to transport products to and from the warehouse and worksite, and have material handling equipment to comply with the requirements of PWS Appendix B.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a clear explanation as well as a list of vehicles and equipment that is likely to ensure performance will be compliant, when describing how all transportation requirements will be met.

Element 6: Panel/Material Cleaning and General Maintenance

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide clear information regarding how on-site and off-site (Bldg 20057) panel/material cleaning will be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of PWS Paragraph 1.3.2.; and the type of equipment and supplies that will be used (must be ecologically safe).

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the effective methods of cleaning and general maintenance and environmentally safe products to be used.

Element 7: On-site Management of the Contract Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide an on-site manager and alternate(s) of all facets of contract performance.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates the ability to provide an adequately skilled employee and alternate employee(s) capable of effectively performing on-site as the manager of all facets of contract performance (PWS Paragraph 1.8.1).

Subfactor 5: Prior Experience

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s prior experience for a minimum of two relevant furniture maintenance contracts/jobs performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation, with the following qualifiers for each job:

a) Design and reconfiguration of 50 existing systems furniture workstations using AutoCAD, or equal.

b) Completion of a phased installation of systems furniture in an occupied building.

c) Experience in maintaining and tracking systems furniture work station inventories using an automated database system(s).

For each relevant furniture contract/job described, provide the following administrative data:

1. Company/Division Name

2. Program Title

3. Contracting Agency

4. Contract Number

5. Type of Contract (Fixed Price)

6. Dates Performed

7. Contract Value (including any option years)

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates relative experience in at least two jobs performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation; both (or all) job descriptions include the details of all three qualifiers, all administrative data were provided for each job, and the response indicates a thorough understanding of the technical aspects of each job.

FACTOR 2 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 1—Additional Instructions to Offerors, and the instructions in attachment 5, Pricing Schedule.

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 taken from the pricing exhibit, attachment 5 for

Contract Line Item Numbers 0001 through 2004 for the base period and option periods I through II.

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 either the Technical or Past

Performance 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 either the Technical or Past Performance 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 either the Technical or Past Performance 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 either the Technical or Past Performance 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.