Evaluation_Factors_comments_2_Aug_16.docx

Attachment 2

EVALUATION FACTORS

BASEWIDE FLOOR COVERING IDIQ

1. The Government will use Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. An award, if any, 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 Capability 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 without discussions or make no award at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the price fair and reasonableness 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 – Management Approach

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s approach for ensuring their Management Approach 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 detailed documentation that ensures the performance will be IAW the standards in the PWS throughout the life of the contract to include:

1. Describe how up to 15 multiple calls in various stages will be managed concurrently while adhering to contractual the period of performance in accordance with the PWS, paragraph 3.5.

2. Describe how flooring materials will be received, warehoused, and transported to the job site daily without the use of government resources, manpower, and equipment in accordance with the PWS, paragraph 3.5.

3. Provide certification documentation including the General Foreman meets Certified Floor Covering Installers (CFI) at a C-II level.

4. Describe the approach to accomplishing furniture lift system requirements as described in PWS Paragraph 1.12. Provide manufacturers equipment literature and equipment description.

5. Provide a carpet reclamation plan in accordance with PWS, paragraph 1.5.1

6. Provide asbestos abatement plan accordance with Paragraph 1.13 & Appendix A of the PWS. Include current, valid asbestos abatement license for the state of Ohio.

Subfactor 2: Product Samples Description: This Subfactor shall evaluate the offeror’s ability to submit samples in accordance with the salient characteristics listed in the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror provides samples of flooring material as described in the PWS paragraphs 1.8 – 1.10 and manufactures specifications.

The offeror is required to provide:

1. One (1) set of bound samples for all proposed materials and products offered; which meet the salient characteristics listed in the PWS Sections 1.8 – 1.10, Appendix C, and D.

2. One (1) copy of manufacture’s specifications for each product sample offered, and the products that contain post-consumer recycled content are clearly marked.

Subfactor 3: Prior Experience Description: This Subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s Prior Experience as it relates to projects similar in scope in the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates relative experience on at least three (3) projects performed within five (5) years of the issue date of the solicitation with a minimum for each project of at least $15,000. Include work performed in occupied facilities and provide the required administrative data.

Provide relevant experience as it relates to 1, 2, 3, and 4 in sufficient detail to show:

1. The contractor shall provide a minimum of three (3) projects where it performed work similar to scope describes in the PWS.

2. Projects shall be current or completed within the past five (5) years.

3. Minimum project cost shall be at least $15,000.

4. Provide a list of five (5) projects where carpet was installed in an occupied facility and the scheduling / coordination approach for installing carpet in an occupied facility.

5. For each relevant contract/job, provide the following administrative data:

a. Company/Division Name

b. Program Title

c. Contracting Agency

d. Contract Number

e. Dates Performed

f. Contract / Project Value (including any option years)

g. POC (Point of Contact), Phone number, Address

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 Appendix 1—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 the sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLIN 0001 for the base performance period and option periods I through IV

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 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.

19 October 2016 image1.emf