JSU Radiology Equipment PMA.pdf

PURPOSE

The contractor shall provide a Radiology Equipment preventative maintenance service agreement to the following Albuquerque Area Indian Health Service Facility:

Jicarilla Service Unit 500 North Mundo Road Dulce, New Mexico 87528

Acquisition will be for one (1) base with four (4) option years.

DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES

The contractor shall be in accordance with all Federal, State, Local, Tribal and IHS regulations and shall be made with minimal divergence from the schedule established and with minimum disturbance and maximum protection of government personnel, property and general public.

Offers will be accepted for a Radiology Equipment preventative maintenance service agreement on the following radiology equipment with the following specifications:

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The items required under this contract shall commence January 01, 2025.

PRICING

Offers for a Radiology Equipment preventative maintenance service agreement will be provided to the specified Albuquerque Area Indian Health Service Facilities in the following format:

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

GENERAL INFORMATION

(1) FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will award a Fixed-Price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to this solicitation; will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. QUALIFICATION OF PROPOSED KEY PERSONNEL

The technical qualifications of the personnel who would be assigned to the contract should include their academic, professional, and technical experiences related to the contract and to the functions and duties they would perform. The proposal should include a description of each position proposed under this contract, and specify the qualifications of the person(s) to be employed.

The proposal should specify the relevant background and experience of key staff for their work in areas of relevance to this contract.

2. QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (QCP)

Contractor must identify an acceptable approach and those actions employed to ensure compliance with product quality and control standards in the SOW. Describe in detail how the Contractor will assure the tasks are completed timely and to the service level standards identified in the SOW. Provide effective measures for HAZMAT handling and procedures that demonstrate compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations; and procedures that are tailored to support these services in accordance with the overall SOW. The Quality Control Plan shall clearly demonstrate the Contractor’s full effort to provide services which meet the full requirements, service level standards and site appearance standards as delineated herein. The QCP shall clearly outline how the Contractor will plan, deliver, manage, and provide corrective action when necessary.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror will be evaluated to assess the demonstrated quality of performance on similar work, to include the ability to control the quality and cost of work, timeliness of performance, and effectiveness at accomplishing the goals of previous work.

4. PRICE

The price proposal shall be evaluated to determine the Offeror's ability to carry out its proposed technical approach and indicate that the Offeror understands the nature and extent of the work to be performed. The total price of each contract line item shall be added together to arrive at an overall total. Offerors must include the formulas and factors used in calculation of the data.

An award will be made on a best value basis; both price and other factors considered.

Offeror's proposal is found to be technically acceptable, based upon the evaluation criteria, and the Offeror is determined responsive and responsible in accordance with the terms and conditions of this solicitation.

(2) RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, 3 and 4. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are more important than price. Selection of the firm to perform this Contract will be based on IHS’ assessment of the best value to the Government.

RESPONSIBILITY

To be eligible for an award, an Offeror must be determined responsible in accordance with the standards in FAR Part 9.104.

AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS & COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with

Offerors (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

RATING FACTORS

Evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section.

Proposals will be scored as indicated hereafter. Technical evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance. The Technical Evaluation Team will identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Since factors are listed in descending order of importance, as technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, difference in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in rating and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

The technical evaluation will be attained through a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal. Technical risks will be included in the final evaluation of each factor and will not be evaluated as a separate factor. In the assessment of technical risk, the Government evaluators will consider all available information.

The following is an adjectival/numeric l rating system that will be used to evaluate Offeror’s proposals:

Adjectival Rating

Numeric

Rating Description

Exceptional 5 Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies

Good

Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor correctable weaknesses exits.

Acceptable 3 Meets all minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies.

Marginal

Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exists.

Unacceptable 1 Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria;

proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.