Attachment_10 _M-1_Rev.pdf

Attachment 10

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1

National Park Service Solicitation Number P16PS00226

1. EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following criteria will be used to evaluate the proposal received. Weights and relative order of importance are as indicated.

CRITERIA WEIGHT

A. TECHNICAL APPROACH AND SCHEMATIC

PLAN SKETCH 0-30

Evaluation will be based on the following:

(1) TECHNICAL APPROACH

-Preferred plan for visitor safety;

-Method for removing debris and existing roofing material from the roof to the ground;

-List nail manufacturer and stock item number for applying cedar shakes;

and

-Fall protection plan for workers.

(2) SCHEMATIC PLAN SKETCH

-Existing building(s), sidewalks, streets, porches and stairs;

-Dimensions for any scaffolding, jersey barriers, or related equipment that extends into the parking lot;

-Location of scaffolding and work access stairs and ladders;

-Detail of scaffolding tie-in bracing if required;

-Identification of any windows that will be used for tie-in; and -Details of jersey barriers (if any) showing style, dimensions and locations.

B. QUALIFICATIONS AND PAST EXPERIENCE 0-30

Evaluation will be based on a copy of the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau (CSSB) New Roof Construction Manual March 2015, hard copy of the manufacturer’s warranty and two photographs of two previous roof projects that were completed on historic structures preferably with wood shingles.

C. INSTLALER’S AND MANUFACTURER’S

WARRANTY 0-30

Evaluation will be based on a sample of the installer’s and manufacturer’s warranty.

M-2

CRITERIA WEIGHT

D. PAST PERFORMANCE 0-10

Evaluation will be based Past Performance Questionnaires for previous roof projects that were completed on historic structures preferably wood shingles or performed with with duties similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to those required under this Solicitation as follows:

(1) Quality of Products and Services:

Demonstrated ability to perform services in accordance with contract specifications.

Conformance to good standards of work-manship. Durability and reliability of products, ease of maintenance. (0-02)

(2) Timeliness of Performance: Compliance with delivery schedules; reliability;

responsiveness to technical direction; (0-02)

(3) Business Relations: Effective management, ability to manage projects involving subcontracts, working relationship with the Contracting Officer and technical representatives reasonable/cooperative behavior, flexibility, effective Contractor recommended solutions, business like concern for Governments interests; providing current, accurate and complete billings. (0-02)

(4) Cost Control: Ability to complete contracts within budget (at or below); reasonableness of price change proposals submitted. (0-02)

M-3

(5) Customer Satisfaction: Satisfaction of end users with Contractor’s products and service;

durability of the completed products withstanding end user handling. (0-02)

F. PRICE

The Government will evaluate cost or price in accordance with FAR Part 31. In addition, the Government will evaluate proposals to determine cost and price should be an adequate reflection of the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements of the solicitation.

2. METHODOLOGY FOR PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND NEGOTIATION

The Government will evaluate all technical and cost proposals received as follows:

A. Proposals will be evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Panel using Criteria A Technical Approach and Schematic Plan, Criteria B Qualifications and Past Experience, Criteria C, Installer’s and Manufacturer’s Warranty, Criteria D, Past Performance and Criteria E, Price. Based on this evaluation, evaluators will unanimously vote on the acceptability or unacceptability of each proposal. The evaluated price will not be rated or scored, but will be considered for reasonableness in the final source selection decision. At this stage, unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from the competition.

B. If a Competitive Range has been determined, negotiations will be conducted with all proposals included in the Competitive Range.

3. AWARD CRITERIA

A. Award of any contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation will be based on best value to the Government, cost or price and other factors considered. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price; however, cost/price may contribute in the selection decision.

B. In the event the Offeror is determined to have no past performance information which is both recent and relevant, the Offeror shall be subject to the provision of FAR 15.305(2)(iv).

C. Price will be a factor in the award decision, although the award may not necessarily be made to that offeror submitting the lowest price. Likewise, award will not necessarily be made for technical capabilities that would appear to exceed those needed for the successful performance of the work. A thorough examination will be made to determine an offeror’s adequate understanding of the Scope of Work (See Section C) related to proposal presentation, cost and other factors considered. The question to be decided in making the final

M-4 selection will be whether proposals scoring better are worth the dollar difference (if any).

D. As proposals become more equal in their technical merit, the evaluated cost or price becomes more important.

E. The Government reserves the right to make award without further discussion of the proposals received. Therefore, it is important that your proposal be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from both the technical and cost standpoints.

After submission of proposals and closing thereof, no information will be released until after award.

F. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to the Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the project.

G. In addition to the evaluation of technical merit, the cost, or price, and other factors, the standards for determining an offeror’s responsibility as set forth in FAR 9.104-1, will be examined and considered. Additional factors which are not specifically set forth in this solicitation, but which are prerequisites for award as implied by law, regulation or public policy will be considered in the determination of an offeror’s acceptability.

4. NOTICE OF AWARD

All offerors will be notified of their selection or non-selection as soon as possible. In accordance with FAR 15.1002, the Government will provide a debriefing after award, when requested in writing, to an offeror that has unsuccessfully competed for the acquisition. Proposals will not be returned, and one copy of each unsuccessful proposal will be retained by the National Park Service for its permanent records. All other copies will be destroyed.