Furniture_Evaluation_Plan_Contracts.doc

Evaluation Plan for Solicitation N68335-16-T-0333

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Volume 1 -- Technical:

The Government will evaluate the contractor’s technical approach to meeting the requirements outlined in the SOW to determine whether the contractor has a comprehensive technical understanding of the requirements and technical complexity inherent in the SOW. The Government will evaluate the contractor’s Design Layout and most efficient use of space/ maximum space utilization (most optimal cubicle and furniture placement). Special discriminating features to include product samples (literature or brochures) the contractor shall submit to give the Government a clear picture of the contractor’s product will also be considered by the Government in determining best value. The Government will evaluate the contractor’s Phased Milestone Schedule, i.e. exactly how (method) and how quickly (timeliness) the requirement will be executed. The Government will also evaluate the extent and duration of the Warranty.

Volume 2 – Past Performance Volume

This section shall identify and describe Past Performance in fulfilling Government contracts of the Offeror and their proposed subcontractors as it relates to efforts similar to this requirement. The Offeror shall submit three references from the most recent and related efforts concerning contracts and subcontracts that demonstrate their ability to perform the proposed effort. References should be able to provide information about the firm’s performance during the past 3 years (from the issue date of the solicitation) regarding: Quality of Service, Timeliness of Service, Ability to Manage Cost/Control Cost, and Responsiveness to Customers.

The following information must be provided along with each reference: Contract number, contract value, short description of service, contract award date, point of contact, phone number for each point of contact, E-mail address (if available). If this information is not provided, it could have an effect on the Past Performance rating.

The Government reserves the right to use Past Performance information obtained from these sources or from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, such as the Navy's Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Since the Government may not necessarily interview all sources provided by the Offeror, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government does not assume the duty to search the data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete Past Performance information remains with the Offeror. If you are aware of any situation that may negatively impact your Past Performance rating, please discuss the situation and how it was remedied. You must either provide the above information or state that no Past Performance history exists.

Where an offeror does not have past performance, the offeror will be rated neutrally (offeror receives no merit or demerit for the past performance factor). The following elements will apply to Past Performance:

Quality of Service (element of Past Performance) - Please provide a synopsis of the quality of service provided. Include compliance with contract requirements and frequency, completeness, and accuracy of reports.

Timeliness of Service (element of Past Performance) - Please provide a synopsis of schedule successes and slippages per contract. Discuss the reasons for changes in the schedule and whether modified schedules were met. Discuss whether Contract Data Requirements List deliverables were delivered in a timely manner; replacement of key personnel in a timely manner; and effective planning and managing of program.

Ability to Manage Cost/Control Cost (element of Past Performance) - Please describe your efforts to control Cost under previous contracts. Include any Cost overruns experienced with explanations.

Responsiveness to Customers (element of Past Performance) - Please describe your efforts to provide effective management, businesslike correspondence, responsiveness to contract requirements, prompt notification of problems, reasonable/cooperative behavior, flexible, proactive, effective Offeror recommended solutions and timely award and management of subcontracts.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

Offerors will be evaluated and the Government anticipates making an award in accordance with the procedures set forth below. Award of the order resulting from this solicitation will be made to the Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, offers the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to judge which proposal offers the greatest value to the Government.

The following requirements will be requested from all firms submitting proposals and be evaluated based upon the following criteria to identify the response providing the best value to the Government:

1. Technical

Design Layout / Maximum Space Utilization (element of Technical)

Phased Milestone Schedule/Delivery (element of Technical)

Warranty (element of Technical)

2. Past Performance

Quality of Service (element of Past Performance)

Timeliness of Service (element of Past Performance)

Ability to Manage Costs/Control Costs (element of Past Performance)

Responsiveness to Customers (element of Past Performance)

3. Price/Cost

The above factors are in descending order of importance. The Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price, however, Price is an important factor and should not be ignored. As the ratings of proposals in relation to non-cost factors become more equal, Price will become more of a deciding factor in selecting the best value offer.

Technical Ratings/Definitions:

Outstanding: Proposal significantly exceeds the requirements or meets the requirements and contains at least one exceptional enhancing feature that benefits the Government. Any weakness is minor.

Highly Satisfactory: Proposal exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the Government or meets requirements and contains enhancing features that benefit the Government. Any weakness is minor.

Satisfactory: Proposal meets requirements. Any weaknesses are minor and will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Marginal: Proposal contains weaknesses or minor deficiencies that could have some impact if accepted.

Unsatisfactory: Proposal does not comply substantially with requirements.

Past Performance Risk/Definitions:

Low Risk: Based on the offeror’s past performance, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Risk: Based on the offeror’s past performance, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Risk: Based on the offeror’s past performance, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Price/Cost

The contracting team will evaluate the price/cost proposal submitted in accordance with the solicitation and determine if the proposal is fair and reasonable to the Government. The total evaluated price will consist of the sum of all priced CLINs.

Basis for Award of Order

Evaluation factors of Technical, Past Performance and Price are in descending order of importance.

The Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price, however, Price is an important factor and should not be ignored. As the ratings of proposals in relation to non-cost factors become more equal, Price will become more of a deciding factor in selecting the best value offer.

The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.