Attachment_2_-_Evaluation_Factors_-_30_June_2015.pdf

FA8601-15-R-0035

Attachment 2 -- Evaluation Factors

30 June 2015

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 and Price, as expounded below. Both evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is unawardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the Technical 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 factor; 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 fairness 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 (PWS Paragraph 2.1)

Element 1: Quality Control Plan (QCP) (PWS Paragraphs 2.1.1, 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 2.1.1.3)

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 system for preventing the occurrence of deficiencies; and

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

Element 2: Notification Plan (PWS Paragraph 2.1.2)

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to ensure personnel are available to perform snow and ice removal services and to notify its personnel when such services are required.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides an effective

Notification Plan, including points-of-contact, which is likely to ensure that personnel are consistently available to perform snow and ice removal services when such services are required.

Subfactor 2: Key Control (PWS Paragraph 4.17)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to maintain control of Government issued keys/combinations/entry cards IAW the terms and conditions of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a plan, which is likely to ensure that keys/combinations/entry cards will be used only by authorized personnel (contractor employees who have been cleared through pass and registration), will not be lost, misused or duplicated without authorization. The offeror must also provide a description of key control with a sample key control log that identifies the following:

1. Key Number/Identification

2. Printed name and signature of employee.

3. Date and time key was signed out and signed back in.

4. Annotation if a key/entry card number/identification was lost/stolen/possible duplication and the CO and COR will be notified within 1(one) hour of occurrence, in writing.

Subfactor 3: Scheduling Methodologies (PWS Paragraph 4.18)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a workable schedule that demonstrates an understanding of all services (PWS section 1.0), schedule including staffing plan to accommodate all services, and a notification plan for snow removal for both daytime and after hours.

Element 1: Work Schedule

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s work schedule that reflects all building numbers; levels of service as defined in Appendix A, Air

Force Custodial Services; and completion times. The work schedule shall also address Snow and Ice Removal.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror shows the ability to develop and employ a work schedule that ensures timely performance of required services.

Element 2: Staffing Plan

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a staffing plan that will suffice all required services in the PWS.

Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a workable staffing plan which includes a schedule and number of employees that will meet all requirements outlined in the PWS.

Subfactor 4: – Equipment and Supplies (PWS Paragraph 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.1.1, 1.5.1.2)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a detailed list of all equipment and supplies that will be supplied to fulfill contract requirements listed in the PWS.

Element 1: Equipment and Supplies List

Description: This element will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a detailed list of equipment and supplies the offeror will use to fulfill PWS requirements.

Measure of Merit: The measure of merit is met when the offeror submits a proposal that includes the size, number, and type of equipment and supplies provided by the offeror. This list must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the scope and size of services required in the PWS and satisfy the requirements of the PWS.

Subfactor 5: Prior Experience

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide sufficient prior experience.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides proof of having performed, at a minimum, 1 million square feet of custodial services within the past 3 years. This 1 million square feet requirement is not limited to one contract and, if across multiple contracts, must have been performed concurrently for no less than a 365 day period.

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 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 across 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 and the 6 month extension of services 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 0004 for the base performance period, option periods I through V, and the 6 month extension of services.

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 through IV $530,913.58

Evaluated Value of Maximum 6-Month Option to Extend Services IAW FAR 52.217-8 $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 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 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 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 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.