DormEvalutationFactorsAttach3_9Nov.docx

Attachment 3

FA8601-16-R-0006

9 November 2015

EVALUATION FACTORS

DORMITORY MAINTENANCE

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 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:

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 1.14, 1.3. and 1.17.2.3.4.)

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 inspections to be conducted and personnel responsible for conducting inspections;

3. A clear description of key and control procedures;

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

5. A description of processes and procedures used to track compliance with safety and health plan to include correction of violations;

And

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

Subfactor 2: Qualified Personnel (PWS Paragraphs 1.1.2. and 1.18.)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the need to hire experienced and certified employees to perform various requirements of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides a detailed organizational plan that ensures performance will be IAW the standards of the PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. Identification of all positions required to perform contract including any trade positions requiring special certification and/or licensing and minimum years of experience required for hire.

2. Identification of all work to be sub-contracted.

Subfactor 3: Prior Experience Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s prior experience for a minimum of two relevant residential maintenance and repair contracts/jobs performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation, with the following qualifiers for each job:

a) Experience with receiving, scheduling, and performing maintenance with customers in residential housing facilities.

b) Experience in creating, scheduling and maintaining a preventive maintenance inspection system that ensures all equipment is maintained to preclude failures.

For each relevant maintenance 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 both qualifiers, all administrative data were provided for each job, and the response indicates a thorough understanding of the technical aspects and subtle nuances of each job.

Subfactor 4: Continuation of Essential Contractor Services (PWS Paragraph 1.17.11) Description: This subfactor will evaluate the proposed plan to meet the Continuation of Essential Contractor Services during periods of crisis or contingencies.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposed Continuation of Essential Contractor Services Plan demonstrates a comprehensive and sound approach for performing those services identified as essential contractor services during crisis situations.

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 2—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 0004 for the base performance period and option periods I through II; 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 2001 through 2004), prorate it to a six-month value, and add that amount to the sum of all CLINS (base performance period and option periods I and II). 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.

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 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 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 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 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.