Atch_04,_Evaluation_Plan.pdf

EVALUATION PLAN

for

FA9101-19-Q-2000

Basis for Award

a. The Government will award a single firm-fixed-price (FFP) purchase order resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Award will be made to the offeror who represents the best value to the Government based on the information below.

b. The Government reserves the right to evaluate offers and make award without seeking additional information from offeror’s through discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price, schedule, and past performance standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

c. Failure to provide offers that comply with any requirements of the solicitation may render the offer non-compliant and be grounds for rejection.

Evaluation Information:

a. The Contracting Officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a compliance review for determination of basic offer adequacy prior to conducting evaluations. The Government reserves the right to obtain additional information from offerors solely for the purpose of making a responsibility determination after receipt of offers. Requests for responsibility information do not constitute discussions.

By submission of the offer, offerors agree that all items proposed will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval

b. Offerors shall propose a unit price for Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) 0001 – 0011. This price should be all-inclusive including the most current New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT) applicable to Otero County- Holloman AFB NM and provide the total price for each CLIN. Any offer that fails to cite a price for each CLIN or fails to make an entry may be rejected as nonconforming to this solicitation.

c. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to provide an offer in accordance with the terms, conditions, and structure of the solicited requirement will be rejected.

d. Only FFP offers will be evaluated for this action. An offer using a sliding price scale or pricing subject to escalation based on any contingency for a FFP designated CLINs will not be accepted.

Evaluation Factors:

a. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Price

Past Performance

Schedule

Past performance and schedule, when combined, are more important when compared to the price.

b. Price:

Initially, offers will be ranked according to their TEP which will be calculated as the sum total of CLINs

0001-0011.

Once the Contracting Officer has determined that competitive offers exists, the offeror’s TEP will be evaluated for reasonableness based on the comparison of the offeror's overall TEP with all other competitive offerors’ overall TEPs received in response to the solicitation. In the event competitive offers are not received, the Contracting Officer will attempt to determine the offeror’s CLIN and TEP prices fair and reasonable utilizing the methods established at FAR 13.106-3.

c. Past Performance:

c.1. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the offeror’s performance deemed recent

(defined in paragraph c.2. below) and relevant (defined in paragraph c.3. below) to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror on the Attachment 7, Past

Performance Questionnaire form. Past performance may be Government or commercial sources; the same weight will be given to all sources. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies when such information is relevant to the current acquisition.

This information is required on offerors, subcontractors, or joint venture partners considered relevant to overall successful performance. Offerors may submit not more than three (3) recent and relevant contracts for the prime contractor and not more than two (2) for each major subcontractor. If the prime is a joint venture, offerors may submit not more than two (2) references per joint venture partner. This information is required for the offeror and all major subcontractors who are to perform 20 percent or more of contract scope based on labor hours or total cost.

Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor/joint venture partners cannot be disclosed by the prime offeror without the subcontractor's or joint venture partner's consent.

Provide with the offer, a letter from all subcontractors/joint venture partners that will perform on the contract, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

c.2. Recent is defined as completed or ongoing contracts with a performance history within the last four

(4) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

c.3. Relevancy is defined as performance as a subcontractor or prime contractor on past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the

Government requirement. Relevant contracts include experience and expertise working with high strength

(>11,000 KSI) and standard strength (<11,000 KSI) concrete. Experience would also include managing large orders and pouring of concrete similar to the magnitude required for this action. Relevant past performance will also reflect demonstrated experience and expertise working with large diameter (#10 or greater) rebar with tight spacing (~6 in. on center) and bending large rebar sizes. Relevancy will be evaluated on the basis of Table 1:

Table 1 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c.4. Performance Confidence Assessment: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed under the contract scope by reviewing information provided by the offeror and other information available to the Government.

Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessment

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

c.5. Offerors are advised that while an offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral Confidence, sources of existing information available to the Government including, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System, Past Performance Information

Retrieval System, Federal Performance and Integrity Information System, and Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System, may be utilized. The Government may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to use or not use past performance information submitted by the offeror based on whether or not adequate recorded past performance information is available in its Federal databases.

d. Schedule:

d.1. The offeror shall provide a schedule with key milestones for meeting the pour dates listed in the solicitation. The milestones shall include sufficient information for the Government to establish confidence in the offeror's ability to meet the Government's schedule needs. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s schedule on a pass/fail basis in accordance Table 3.

Table 3 – Schedule

Pass Schedule milestones provide sufficient information for the

Government to have confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet the specified pour dates.

Fail Schedule milestones do not provide sufficient information for the Government to have confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet the specified pour dates.

Evaluation Process:

a. The Contracting Officer will make award to the offeror who, being responsible, represents the best value to the Government while weighing past performance and schedule, combined, as more important than the TEP.