Amendment_6.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

The purpose of this amendment is to answ er vendor questions and to update the Section M Technical Factor 2 Subfactor C (change highlighted). All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1 14

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Mar-2013

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HQ0034-13-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Jan-2013

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Mar-2013

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

2521 SOUTH CLARK ST

ARLINGTON VA 22202-3909

HQ0034 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ0034-13-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

VENDOR Q&A 3

This amendment answers several vendor questions, below. However, the Government has received other questions that remain to be answered. The latter are listed at the end of this section so that vendors are aware that the Government is actively working to provide a response. If your firm submitted questions that have not been answered and do not appear in the unanswered list, please contact Contract Specialist Wendy Rizzo at wendy.rizzo@whs.mil.

Questions with Responses (22)

Q1: Bid form Item No 0002: A unit price is required for a FFP (firm fixed price) to provide labor, materials, and equipment to perform major repairs at or above $2,000.01 in accordance with the Performance Work Statement.

We are unable to identify a specific scope of work (ex. recable, motor replacement, etc.) to price. Are we to provide the maximum dollar value of repair work in excess of $2,000.01 that we are willing to perform?

A1: Please review Solicitation Section C, Paragraphs 4.1.2 and 13 for the definition and requirements under major repairs. Please also review Solicitation Attachment J-B1. Vendors are not required to provide the maximum dollar value of major repair work.

Q2: Page 7 of 73 provides two tables for pricing. The first table appears to require the minimum and maximum quantity of repair work within a $2,000.01 - $1,000,000.00 range that the individual company is willing to perform.

How is this information to be used in the selection and or award process? The second table appears to require the minimum and maximum quantity of repair work and maintenance work the individual company is willing to perform. How is this information to be used in the selection and or award process?

A2: These tables are for post-award administration. For the selection evaluation process, please review Solicitation Section M, Factor 4: Price.

Q3: Solicitation Section C Paragraph 14 Pricing Repairs details the use of the RS Means database in combination with the Contractor’s coefficient (multiplier) to determine repair pricing. Is the coefficient requested in the bid form or elsewhere in the proposal? If not, how will it be determined?

A3: Vendors are required to complete and submit Solicitation Attachment J-B1, RS Means Co-Efficient CLINs.

There are cells for the proposed RS Means coefficients for unit book pricing and for non pre-priced items for all contract years. See Solicitation Section C Paragraph 14.7, Sample Calculations, for more information.

Q4: Can you define the minimum and maximum CLIN values and quantities as outlined on page 7?

A4: Answer: Monthly Maintenance CLIN values will be based on the winning proposal. This will be a single, firm-fixed price. Minimums and maximums only apply to the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity major repair mailto:wendy.rizzo@whs.mil

CLINs. The minimum value will be $2000.01 and the maximum will be $1,000,000.00. The Government will evaluate every requirement that meets the “major repairs” definition and will determine how to execute it at the Government’s discretion.

Q5: Is parking provided for contractor's assigned personnel?

A5: Yes, but only for on-site technicians.

Q6: In Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 20.7, once issued, who is responsible for maintaining and, if necessary, replacing PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) equipment?

A6: The Government will maintain and replace the PDAs.

Q7: What RS Means program/book will apply to this contract? How will this be applied to include special project requirement (tooling/equipment/etc?) above what may be included in the national "bare cost" average?

A7: Please review Solicitation Section C, Paragraphs 14.1 through 14.5.

Q8: Will the national bare cost average be used or will it be adjusted for this project location(s)?

A8: The Contractor shall utilize the appropriate RS Means City Cost Index.

Q9: Projects of similar characteristics including size, security, and quality are typically owned and or managed by a government agency. Currently, most government agencies (Federal Government and Airports Authorities) have policies that will not allow them to issue written references, however they are more than willing to provide verbal references. If we provide contact information (i.e., point of contact name, phone number, email address) can this be used in lieu of attachment J-L1?

A9: Please review Solicitation Section L-6, Past Performance Proposal – Volume II. Vendors must complete and submit Attachment J-L2, Past Performance Data Sheet, for three contracts. Even if a reference does not return the questionnaire, the Government will make a reasonable attempt to verbally contact references based on the information provided in J-L2.

Q10: Please provide the non-abbreviated version of “IICRC” referenced in the Technical subfactor C.

A10: This information was inadvertently copied from another requirement. It has been deleted.

Q11: Will the additional units added to the Lift Net System be monitored by the existing PCs or will there be additional PC monitoring locations?

A11: Yes. Additional units added will be monitored by existing Lift Net system locations.

Q12: What network communication will be provided (i.e. Ethernet, Fiber-optic, etc.)?

A12: Ethernet

Q13: Do the 5 year inspections and test have to be performed during non-standard hours? Or can they be scheduled during standard hours? Or if only certain units must be tested during non-standard hours; how many?

(Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 3.7)

A13: The 5 year inspections and tests shall be performed during non-standard hours.

Q14: Is the incumbent currently using the Maximo Enterprise Asset Management software for elevator, escalator, and lift preventive maintenance and reporting? (Solicitation Section C, Paragraphs 4 and 5)

A14: The incumbent is required to use Maximo.

Q15: How many Maximo Handhelds will be provided? Who is responsible for handheld software updates?

(Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 4.4.1)

A15: The Government will provide a minimum of 2 handhelds and will update the software as necessary.

Q16: Will the PBMO be providing a centrally located office for on-site personnel which will assist in meeting and/or exceeding proposed response times? (Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 9.3)

A16: Yes.

Q17: RS Means is not typically used for elevator repairs. Is this currently being used by the incumbent?

(Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 14)

A17: No, this is not a requirement under the expiring contract being performed by the incumbent.

Q18: Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 15 makes no reference to the customer’s expectation with regards to Project Manager (PM) location and hours required to be onsite. The definition for the PM in Paragraph 23 indicates day-to-day contact. What are the expected hours for the PM to be on-site? (I.e., 10 hours a week, 40 hours a week, etc.)

A18: There are no required hours for the PM to be on-site. However, the PM should be available to the Contracting Officer (CO) or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) at all times. The incumbent is not on location all the time but is available when needed.

Q19: The performance based matrix in Solicitation Section C references repair times for standard operating hours Emergency (1 hour) and Urgent Service (2 hours) calls differ from paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 which refer to section 9.5 that indicates 24 hours repair times. Are the times referenced in the matrix referring to the time required to arrest the emergency situation (Emergency Service Call - 1 Hour) and to get the situation under control (Urgent Service Call – 2 hours)? If not then the performance matrix repair times appear to be in conflict with the repair times listed in 9.3 and 9.4 which refer to the repair time in 9.5 of 24 hours. Please clarify.

A19: Yes, the time referenced in the performance based matrix is for responding to the situation and to get it under control.

Q20: Pertaining to “On-Site Representative” definition in Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 23, we were unable to locate a reference to an On-Site Representative in the body of the RFP. Is this a separate manning requirement from the Project Manager and the on-site mechanics?

A20: This should not be considered as separate manning. At the contractor’s discretion, this task can be delegated to any of the mechanics on site.

Q21: (Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 15.1) Can the Project Manager or Alternate Project Manager participate in the performance of repairs, preventative maintenance and testing?

A21: The contractor can use his manning at his discretion.

Q22: Can you please provide the list of Site Visit attendees?

A22: The following firms, listed in alphabetical order, were present:

Admiral Elevator, Inc.

AEGIS Elevator Elevator Control Service Mid-American Elevator Quality Elevator Company Schindler Elevator Warfield and Sanford Elevators

Remaining Questions (11)

• Can you provide a call back report for the past 90 days to illustrate the number of Emergency/Urgent/Routine service calls?

• Can you provide a copy of the SOMM (System Operation Maintenance Manuals) as outlined in Solicitation

Section C Paragraph 18.1 prior to the bid date?

• Can you provide a list of elevator controller models for the elevators to be maintained? We understand from attachment J-C1 that Schindler is the manufacturer but the model may vary throughout the complex.

• If any Schindler 330A or TXR5 controllers are to have Liftnet installed on them can you verify that the

"Lobby Vision PCs" required to interface the controls with Liftnet will be provided if it is not available on the open market? Past experience has shown that OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) may not sell peripheral components to third party service providers but will sell it to the owner of the vertical transportation equipment.

• The equipment list shows only Schindler Elevator equipment in the Pentagon; however during the site visit the machine room we visited housed a Virginia Controls elevator. What make and vintage of controllers are the elevators and escalators to be added to the Lift Net system? Can you please provide a specific model?

• Based on the fact that many of the Elevator Machine Rooms are located in the Basement of Pentagon, are we pulling fiber optic media cable to the nearest PBM Network Switch located in one of the (5) Oxbox locations? Or, is there an alternate location in the Basement or Mezzanine where these cables could be pulled? There would be a significant cost savings if an alternate location could be provided.

• (Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 3.3.1) Please provide the conduit run length required for each elevator location requiring these installations. Also, please provide the number of machine rooms for which this installation process is required.

• (Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 3.3.2) Please provide a map indicating the specific location of each elevator control panel.

• (Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 3.3.3) Please provide the pull distance between each associated electrical box and the corresponding PBM Network switch.

• (Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 3.3.4) Please provide the number of electrical boxes which will need to be installed to accomplish tasks in paragraphs 3.3.1. through 3.3.4.

• (Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 3.2) Please confirm the 29 elevators and escalators requiring the Lift Net system to be installed are properly equipped from the manufacture to successfully connect the Lift Net system without modification of any kind.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

Section M: Evaluation Factors

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best overall value to the Government when all non-price and price-related evaluation factors are considered. In selecting the best overall offer for award, the Government will consider the quality offered, which includes all non-price factors, based on the relative importance of the evaluation factors as stated in this solicitation. The relative quality of offers will be based upon the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the minimum performance requirements of this solicitation and the risk of non-performance, defective performance or late performance under the resulting contract. The Government may award on the basis of a proposal with superior ratings even though it may result in a higher price to the Government. Price may become more important in the evaluation and award as the ratings under the non-price factors become more equal.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

The offer must be practical in both technical approach and total price. Offers that are impractical in terms of technical approach or extremely low in price will be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk in the contract requirements and may not be considered for award. The ability of the offeror to perform all aspects of the anticipated contract from inception to completion will be considered as part of the overall evaluation.

Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1(f), Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition (JAN 2004), the Government may evaluate offers and award contract(s) without discussions with offerors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

To arrive at the best value decision, the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) will evaluate the technical factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the submitted proposals in accordance with the evaluation factors and sub-factors established within the solicitation.

Award selection will be made in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 (c) and section M of the RFP.

In selecting the best overall offer, the following factors will be considered: Key Personnel (Pass/Fail), (1) management, (2) technical, (3) past performance, and (4) price to the Government. A “fail” under any key personnel position or an “unacceptable” under any factor or subfactor shall render the entire proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award. Price will not be a numerically weighted factor in the evaluation of proposals and the importance of price does not bear a linear relationship to the importance of the technical proposal and past performance. The importance of price in the evaluation for award will depend upon the differences in evaluated technical quality and in past performance among offerors and, as stated above, will increase as the differences in technical, management and past performance decrease. The following evaluation factors will be used for this source selection:

Key Personnel: The Government will evaluate Section M: Key Personnel of the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

Key Personnel: This factor will consider the relevant experience and ability of each key personnel member. Prospective offerors are required to provide resumes of personnel that meet or exceed the following certifications and work experience:

Project Manager Alternate Project Manager Project Manager and an Alternate Project Manager who will be responsible for the performance of the work shall have current elevators technician certifications issued by the state of Virginia and no less than five (5) years of certifiable experience in the management and supervision of the work under this contract or of similar nature. The appointed individuals shall have full authority to act on behalf of the Contractor on all contract matters relating to the daily operation of this contract and shall be designated in writing to the

CO.

Factor 1: Management Plan

The Government will evaluate Management Plan of the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

Sub factor A –Organizational Structure

This management subfactor will consider the relevant experience and ability of the current management structure and organization and changes to the organization along with the operations for managing performance of the contract. Evaluation will consider the ability of the offeror to establish organizational controls and procedures to ensure a safe and hazard free work environment. Evaluation of this subfactor will also include an evaluation of major subcontractors’ management structure and their relevant experience, which is defined as work experience similar to the scope of this requirement and ability to perform the requirements of the proposed contract as well as the plan for obtaining and retaining key staff. Management commitment and proposed interaction with the COR should be defined in detail in this section.

Sub factor B – Quality Control Plan The offeror shall submit a quality control plan. This subfactor will consider the proposed quality control plan that will be used in the performance of this contract and how well the offeror demonstrates that it will meet the requirements of the PWS. Consideration shall be given to whether the offeror has achieved certification or whether it is pursuing certification to an internationally accepted and certified quality system and when certification to that system is anticipated.

Sub factor C – Ability of Organization to Respond to Problems Organizational structure’s ability to respond to rapidly emerging problems to include how the organization will evaluate problems and coordinate implementation of risk mitigation strategies to maintain performance, quality, and schedule.

Factor 1: Management Rating Scheme

The Technical Evaluation Panel will assign a single rating that most accurately describes the Offeror’s proposal for Factor 1 using the adjectival scheme below:

Rating Description Color

Outstanding (O) Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Blue

Good (G)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Acceptable (A) Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Green

Marginal (M) Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Yellow

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

3.1.2.2. Methodology

Red

Factor 2: Technical

Sub factor A – Adequacy, Feasibility and Technical Merit The Government will evaluate Adequacy, Feasibility and Technical Merit of the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the following criteria:

This technical evaluation subfactor will consider the adequacy, feasibility and technical merit of the Contractor’s method and approach for delivering preventive maintenance services to elevators, escalators and wheelchair lifts on the Pentagon Reservation and other NCR locations including the Contractor’s understanding of, and approach to, meeting overall requirements as described in the PWS.

Sub factor B – Proposed Methodology This technical evaluation subfactor will consider the offeror’s proposed methodology for meeting the performance requirements including the offeror’s and identified team member’s capabilities and skills.

Evaluation of this subfactor will also consider the offerors methodology for addressing the specific needs of the Pentagon and other DoD NCR facilities that are covered under this contract. Methodology includes the Offeror’s approach to conducting preventive maintenance services.

Subfactor C- Technical Experience and Capability This technical subfactor will consider the offeror’s and team member’s depth of experience and qualifications in delivering “industry standard/state-of-the-art” preventive maintenance services similar in scope and type as those specified. The Offeror must clearly demonstrate an understanding of IICRC and other standards that would be considered fundamental to the services requested. The availability of a local relationships to provide the enhanced services required to augment the contractor’s staff is considered an important factor in determining capability due to the potential need for additional staff under this contract.

Factor 2: Technical Rating Scheme:

The Technical Evaluation Panel will assign a single rating that most accurately describes the Offeror’s proposal for Factor 2 using the adjectival scheme below:

Rating Description Color

Outstanding (O) Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Blue

Good (G)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Acceptable (A) Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Green

Marginal (M) Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Yellow

Unacceptable (U)

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Red

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s quality of performance on its previous/or current, relevant** projects by using a combination of the following methods:

Relevance Schemes: The Past Performance Evaluation Panel will assign a relevance rating based on the offeror’s past performance information.

RELEVANCE RATING: The Government will evaluate the relevance of the offeror’s past performance prior to assessing the offeror’s confidence rating. This rating is a measure of how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Each project referenced in will be assigned one of the following ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Relevant (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Somewhat Relevant

(SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

Not Relevant (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires and the relevant project definition described below.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s quality of performance on its previous/or current, relevant** projects by using one or a combination of the following methods:

- Awardee search in FAPIIS and SAM- In accordance with Subpart 9.104-6 and FAR 9.405(d)(4)

- Contacting references as provided in Section M: Past Performance

- Provide references from 3-5 from similar experiences in the same capacity

- Review of information available from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Contractor

Appraisal Support System (CCASS), Architect/Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and other commercial sources

- The Contracting Officer’s knowledge of the offeror’s past performance

- Interviews with other Government or commercial personnel contacts not provided by the offeror

** Relevant Project is defined as:

- A contract for elevator/escalator/wheel chair lift maintenance services;

- The minimum contract value is at least $300,000.00;

- The offeror must be the prime contractor;

- If the referenced contract has expired, the end date of the contract performance must have occurred within the last 60 months from the date of the proposal submission deadline;

- If the referenced contract is an active contract at the time of proposal submission, the start date of the contract performance must have occurred no less than 60 months from the date of the proposal submission deadline.

Each offeror’s past performance will be evaluated as part of the Government’s overall evaluation of best value.

At a minimum, this evaluation will take into account past performance information submitted as a part of each offeror’s proposal including information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. The offeror’s performance as a prime contractor will be considered more relevant and be weighted more heavily in the overall past performance evaluation. For those offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating.

Offerors with a negative past performance rating will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies.

Using the method as described in this section, the Government will assign a rating that indicates its degree of relevance in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the proposed contract requirements based on its performance on similar contracts in the past

Confidence Scheme: The Past Performance Evaluation Panel will assign a confidence rating based on the offeror’s past performance information.

CONFIDENCE RATING: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how confident the Government is based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence (SC) 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 (SAT) Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will Successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence (LC) 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 (NC) 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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

Using the method as described in this section, the Government will assign a rating that indicates its level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the proposed contract requirements based on its performance on similar contracts in the past.

Factor 4: Price

Price analysis will be performed for sections A, B, and C below to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal. Reasonableness may be based on one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1 including, without limitation, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and/or comparison to other offers. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For evaluation purposes, the total price to be evaluated will be the total price for preventative maintenance (Part A below), the total price for Lift-Net system installation (Part B below), and the sample tasks 1 and 2 (Part C below).

The offeror’s proposed approach must be consistent with the price proposal. As part of the price evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing including unbalancing in the Schedule of Prices. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

For the purposes of price evaluation, the phrase "all option periods" in this section is inclusive of a potential six month extension of services under FAR clause 52.217-8. Option Period IV pricing will be utilized for the evaluation of the six month extension. However, in the event that the Government wishes to invoke FAR clause 52.217-8, during any year of the resultant contract, the rates that will be used for the extension are the rates applicable to that current year and the extension shall not exceed six months in total length.

A. Price Analysis for Monthly Preventive Maintenance for Elevators, Escalators and Wheel Chair Lifts

The Offeror’s Price shall be analyzed by the offeror providing a monthly rate for all PM Services, to include minor repairs (at or below $2,000.00), for the base year and all option periods.

B. Price Analysis for Lift-Net System Installation

The Offeror’s Price shall be analyzed by the offeror providing a single price for the installation of Lift-Net to the remaining 29 elevators and escalators, for the base period.

C. Price Analysis for Major Repair (repairs at or above $2,000.01) Task Orders using RS Means©:

Price, in terms of Major Repair Task Orders will be the offeror’s coefficients. These coefficients establish competitive cost adjustments, or multipliers, to the R.S. Means pricing structure or non-prepriced items for various projects to be anticipated under this contract.

Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal for scheduled restoration services. For the purpose of performing price analysis, two sample prices for the base period and each option year as referenced in Attachment JB-1 will be calculated using the offeror’s proposed coefficients as applied to the sample tasks 1 and 2 below. The evaluated price will be the total price for sample tasks 1 and 2 for the base and option periods.

Sample Task Price #1: RS Means: The first evaluated price will be the calculated price based on the offeror’s coefficients for a project consisting of R.S. Mean items that total $190,000 and non-prepriced items that total $10,000. This project is a major repair project that will be performed during standard hours that does not have special security requirements. Calculation will be performed by applying the offeror’s coefficients for the base period and all option periods. The evaluated price will be the sum of prices from the base period and all option periods.

Sample Task Price #2: RS Means: The second evaluated price will be the calculated price based on the offeror’s coefficients for a project consisting of R.S. Mean items that total $190,000 and non-prepriced items that total $10,000. This project is a major repair project that will be performed during non-standard hours that have special security requirements. Calculation will be performed by applying the offeror’s coefficients for the base period and all option periods. The evaluated price will be the sum of prices from the base period and all option periods.

Factor 4 Price Rating Scheme

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. Price will be evaluated on basis of the total evaluated prices for:

1. Monthly PM, to include all minor repairs at or below $2,000.00 (Part A above);

2. Lift-Net system installation (Part B above); and

3. The two (2) R.S. Means Sample major repair projects at or above $2,000.01.

(Part C above).

The total price evaluated will be the yearly price of the monthly PM, the Lift-Net system installation, and the two R.S. Means major repair projects combined for the base and all option years.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE EVALUATION FACTORS

Within Factor 1, sub factors A, B, C are of equal importance.

Within Factor 2, sub factors A, B, C are of equal importance.

Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance. Factors 1 and 2 combined are more important than Factor 3. Factor 4 is less important than Factor 3.

When combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

(End of Summary of Changes)