Evaluation Factors.docx

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. The government reserves the right to limit the competitive range for efficiency to the three (3) most highly rated proposals. Site surveys may be conducted to those three (3) offerors’ facilities for a final, comprehensive assessment of the offeror’s capability to perform.

B. Offerors are required to submit information relevant to the evaluation factors listed below with their proposals. The technical factors and sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance and are considered, as a whole, more important than price. Factors I, II, and III (Past Performance, Experience, and Warranty) are together significantly more important than price. Factors I and II (Past Performance and Experience) are each significantly more important than any offered Warranty. In addition to evaluation in accordance with the factors specified below, a performance risk will be assessed to each factor. Offerors are advised that, as technical ratings become more equal among competitors, price will become the ultimate deciding factor for award. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced offeror.

C. Offerors must submit, as part of their proposal, information sufficient to assess their capability to perform the services specified by the SOW. That information may include, but is not limited to, descriptions or diagrams of facilities, descriptions of personnel staffing, including management and engineering, qualifications, certifications and training of personnel, safety, environmental records, and quality assurance procedures and processes.

Failure to address each bullet listed in the factors listed below will result in a lower assessment in those areas.

Factor I – Past Performance

All offerors are required to provide a minimum of three (3) references for past performance information such that experience in the overhaul of items listed in section 1.0 can be verified. Offerors are advised that more recent performance is more relevant than less recent performance and will be given greater weight in the evaluation process. The Government will determine relevancy. References must reflect contracts with Federal agencies or commercial/military organizations. Information must include applicable contract number(s), point of contact, telephone and email address. Verification of information will address, but may not be limited to the sub-factors listed below. The Coast Guard can contact other companies/agencies for information on the offeror’s general contractual performance, i.e., timeliness of delivery, quality of work, compliance with contractual terms and conditions. The government can utilize any source deemed relevant, including Coast Guard personnel who are experienced with the offeror’s performance.

Documented or demonstrated performance, including but not limited to:

· Turnaround time

· The number, frequency, and severity of Quality Deficiencies

· Resolution of notification of Quality Deficiencies

· Percentage of on-time deliveries for all contracts

· Responsiveness as it pertains to urgent requirements, resolution of administration problems, etc.

· Cost control, accomplishment of overhaul within established pricing

Factor II – Experience

In addition to past performance described above, offerors’ proposals will be evaluated for actual experience relevant to this requirement. Offerors are advised that more recent experience is more relevant than less recent experience and will be given greater weight during the evaluation process. Verification of information will address, but is not limited to the sub-factors listed below.

· Number of solenoid valve(s) overhauled during the past 24-month period

· Variety of solenoid valve(s) overhaul performed

· Number of contracts currently held for the same or similar services

Factor III – Warranty

The Offeror’s standard commercial warranty shall apply to this SOW and resulting contract and the terms of that standard warranty shall be provided with the offer. The warranty shall clearly state (1) the exact nature of the item and its components and characteristics that the offeror warrants, (2) the extent of the contractor’s warranty including all the contractor’s obligations to the government for breach of warranty, (3) specific remedies available to the government, and (4) scope and duration of the warranty. Offered warranties that exceed the standard commercial warranty will be considered.

Factor IV – Price or Cost

After technical factors have been evaluated, price will then be considered. As stated previously, price is substantially less important than the technical factors; however, as proposals become more equal, price will become the deciding factor for award. Price analysis will be performed to determine fairness and reasonableness. Congruence between the price and technical proposals will also be considered. Prices that are extremely high or low in comparison to the government’s estimate and historical pricing may be judged unrealistic and may indicate that the offeror has misunderstood the nature of work to be performed. Unrealistic prices will be considered a performance risk and may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

The total evaluated price will be the total of the base period and the four one-year option periods. The government will further evaluate proposals to determine whether or not an offer is unacceptable if the succeeding year’s prices are unbalanced.