Attachment 2 - Evaluation Factors.pdf

Attachment 2

FA8601-20-R-0005

ADDENDUM 52.212-2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will use FAR Part 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 Capability and Price, as expounded below. All 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 shall 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 fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received

Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation.

2. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY:

a. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal shall be made. Each proposal will be assigned a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

b. Each offeror must show evidence of a capability to provide the mandatory requirements set forth in the Statements of Work (PWSs) and elsewhere in this solicitation. A technical review team composed of key Government personnel shall use their technical skills, knowledge and experience to thoroughly review the adequacy of the proposals. In evaluating the Mission Capability Proposal, the

Government shall use the following evaluation criteria:

(1) Compliance with the requirements of the Statements of Work (PWSs) and this entire solicitation.

(2) Understanding of the requirements of the Statements of Work (PWSs) and this entire solicitation.

(3) Compliance and understanding of the requirements of the PWSs as applied specifically to each factor/sub-factor listed below.

c. The following specific factors and sub-factors shall be evaluated in the Technical Capability

Proposal. Any factor or sub-factor determined unacceptable shall render the entire Technical Capability

Proposal as unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is unacceptable, the Contracting

Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it shall not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

d. Technical Capability Evaluation Factors and Sub Factors are as follows:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

Sub-factor 1 – Quality Control Plan (QCP) (PWS Paragraph 8.1)

Description: The Government will evaluate this sub-factor based upon the information contained in the offeror’s quality control plan submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in 52.212-1 and information contained the PWS.

Measure of Merit: The sub-factor is met when the offeror submits a quality control plan that is comprehensive and executable describing a sound approach and detailing all of the following:

1. Identification of personnel responsible for quality control;

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 system for preventing the occurrence or recurrence of deficiencies; and

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

Acceptable __________ Unacceptable _____________

Comments/Reasons for Acceptable or Unacceptable Rating: __________

Sub-factor 2 – Administration/Office support (PWS Paragraph 1.1)

Description: The Government will evaluate this sub-factor based upon the offeror’s ability to provide administration/office support requirements submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in 52.212-1 and information contained the PWS.

Measure of Merit: The sub-factor is met when the offeror submits 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.

Sub-factor 3 – Maintenance Control Plan (MCP) (PWS Paragraph 4.2 and 4.3)

Description: The Government will evaluate this sub-factor based upon the offeror’s understanding of the requirements of the PWS by evaluating the offeror’s ability to develop and submit an annual MCP in accordance with the instructions provided in 52.212-1 and information contained the PWS.

Measure of Merit: The sub-factor is met when the offeror submits a detailed, comprehensive and executable MCP describing a sound approach and detailing all of the following for the life of this contract:

1. A description of required inspections with types and frequencies of inspections to be conducted;

2. A description detailing how maintenance will be performed ensuring reliable and continuous safe operation of all VTE;

3. A sample inspection report

Sub-factor 4 – Service calls (PWS Paragraph 5.1.2 and 5.2.2)

Description: The Government will evaluate this sub-factor based upon the offeror’s ability to provide service calls (routine and emergency) under the full maintenance service agreement at no additional charge to the government IAW the information contained the PWS.

Measure of Merit: The sub-factor is met when the offeror submits a detailed description of how successful completion of all service calls within the specified time in the PWS will be achieved.

Sub-factor 5 – Repairs (PWS Paragraph 5.1.2 and 5.2.2)

Description: This sub-factor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide Written Repair

Estimates IAW the PWS on repairs not covered in the basic full maintenance service contract but necessary to bring the VTE back to operation.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is met when the offeror provides an effective plan, to ensure that Repair Estimates are submitted IAW the terms and conditions of the contract. Also provide a sample Written Repair Estimates containing the following:

1. Itemized estimate for parts and labor.

2. Specified time needed to make the repair.

3. Estimated down-time of the equipment.

Sub-factor 6 - Prior Experience (PWS para 1.0)

Description: This sub-factor will evaluate the offeror's prior experience for a minimum of two relevant VTE maintenance contracts performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation, with the following qualifiers for each job:

1. Performing maintenance and repair of VTE systems.

2. Maintaining and following a schedule for routine maintenance

3. Experience responding to emergency service calls for repair

For each relevant VTE 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 performed within five years of the issue date of the solicitation IAW the description above.

FACTOR 2 - PRICE

Price proposals shall be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Completeness: The Government shall review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with solicitation clause FAR 52.212-1 and Appendix 1—Additional

Instructions to Offerors.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government shall 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.

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

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government shall 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 CLINs

0001 through 0004 for the base performance period and option periods I through

IV as well as a 6 month extension.

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 Length

CLIN

(Example)

Notional Proposed Price (Example)

Base - Traction Elevators 12 Months 0001 $25,000.00

Base - Hydraulic Elevators 12 Months 0002 $25,000.00

Base - Dumbwaiter Elevators 12 Months 0003 $25,000.00

Base - Repair Service Calls 12 Months 0004 $25,000.00

Option I - Traction Elevators 12 Months 1001 $30,000.00

Option I - Hydraulic Elevators 12 Months 1002 $30,000.00

Option I - Dumbwaiter Elevators 12 Months 1003 $30,000.00

Option I - Repair Service Calls 12 Months 1004 $30,000.00

Option II - Traction Elevators 12 Months 2001 $35,000.00

Option II - Hydraulic Elevators 12 Months 2002 $35,000.00

Option II - Dumbwaiter Elevators 12 Months 2003 $35,000.00

Option II - Repair Service Calls 12 Months 2004 $35,000.00

Option III - Traction Elevators 12 Months 3001 $40,000.00

Option III - Hydraulic Elevators 12 Months 3002 $40,000.00

Option III - Dumbwaiter Elevators 12 Months 3003 $40,000.00

Option III - Repair Service Calls 12 Months 3004 $40,000.00

Option IV - Traction Elevators 12 Months 4001 $45,000.00

Option IV - Hydraulic Elevators 12 Months 4002 $45,000.00

Option IV - Dumbwaiter Elevators 12 Months 4003 $45,000.00

Option IV - Repair Service Calls 12 Months 4004 $45,000.00

Total Proposed Price for Base Period & Options I through IV $145,857.25

Evaluated Value of Maximum 6-Month Option to Extend Services

IAW FAR 52.217-8

$50,000.00

Total Evaluated Price $195,857.25

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The Government shall initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government shall 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 shall 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 shall be considered final. The entire proposal shall be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration shall 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 shall be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.

(e) The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

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.