Amended criteria for award.doc

The Solicitation – Section IV

CIC201 06/09

Amended Method of Award (replaces prior section IV. Method of Award in its entirety)

IV.

Method of Award

A.

Evaluation of Offers The Government will award a contract resulting from this Solicitation to the responsible Offeror offering the lowest price technically acceptable Offer. Technically acceptable is defined as being rated "satisfactory" under each non-price factor.

The Government will evaluate starting with the lowest price Offer. Evaluation will stop with the lowest price Offer which is "satisfactory" under each non-price factor; there will be no further evaluation of higher priced Offers.

The following non-price factors will be used:

1.

Past Performance

2.

Experience

3.

Compliance of Products Proposed Offerors must offer to provide all line items; the Government will not make multiple awards.

B.

Determination of Responsibility

In order to be considered responsible, an Offeror must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer's determination of an Offeror's responsibility or non-responsibility may be based upon any information obtained by the Contracting Officer, and is independent of the evaluation of offers set forth herein.

C.

Price Realism

All offers must include realistic prices. In order to be considered realistic, an Offeror may not propose prices that appear so low as to indicate the Offeror's failure to comprehend the scope and complexity of the Work, or the willingness of the Offeror to assume commercial risk to a degree that endangers successful completion of the Project.

D.

Price Reasonableness

All offers must include reasonable prices. The Contracting Officer may reject all offers containing prices determined to be unreasonably high.

E.

Unbalanced Prices

All offers must include balanced prices. If this Solicitation requires unit prices, option prices, or bid rates, the Contracting Officer may reject any proposal determined to be unbalanced with respect to such prices or rates. A proposal may be deemed unbalanced if the Base Contract Price, unit prices, option prices or bid rates vary so markedly from either the Government estimate or the range of such prices contained in competing offers as to materially reduce the effectiveness of the Total Evaluated Price formula in determining the potential cost of an offer in comparison to other, balanced, offers.

F.

Total Evaluated Price Total Evaluated Price equals the CLIN 1 price.

Markup rates for equitable adjustments and unit prices will be considered for reasonableness and balance only, but not added to the Total Evaluated Price.

G.

Non-Price Factors

1.

Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror’s past performance. The evaluation will be a subjective assessment of how well each offeror has satisfied its customers in the past. It will not be based on absolute standards of performance. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror’s performance history, but will attribute more significance to work that was similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to the work that will be required by the contract described in this solicitation. If an offeror has no relevant performance history, then the Government will give it neither a favorable nor an unfavorable evaluation, but rather a "neutral" (satisfactory) evaluation will be assigned.

The Government may base its evaluation of past performance on information that it receives from offerors and information that it obtains through its own investigation. The Government may contact an Offeror’s former customers and business associates; Federal, state, and local government agencies; electronic databases; and other sources of information. The Government will try to determine the Offeror’s reputation for complying with the terms of its contracts, including quality, service delivery, price, and other terms; its reputation for effective employee management and relations; its reputation for effective contract administration; and its reputation for honesty and for reasonable and cooperative behavior. Where the GSA evaluators have direct relevant experience with the performance of the Offeror, such experience will be used and may take precedence over other potential sources of information.

The standard is met when there is no record of poor performance, or dissatisfaction with the contractor’s performance identified.

Subcontractor experience will not be considered under the Past Performance factor.

For joint ventures, this factor will consider all joint venture partners, and will weight the influence of each partner in accordance with its percentage control of the joint venture. This factor will consider the past performance of major subcontractors proportionately to their role in the project, where the proposal describes such a major role and where at least five references with contact information have been provided for the subcontractor. In all cases there must be references for the offeror regardless of role in physical work, and the factor will consider the offeror as the party with overall responsibility for contract performance.

2.

Experience

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's experience performing similar work, with greater weight placed on work in the Southern California area.

The experience of proposed subcontractors will be given Weight proportionate to the role proposed for the subcontractor, where the proposal includes at least 5 references and contact information for the subcontractor.

A satisfactory rating will be granted if the Offeror demonstrates significant experience installing fixtures of the general types proposed.

3. Compliance of Products Proposed

This factor assesses the quality and aesthetics of the fixtures proposed. A satisfactory rating will be granted when:

(a) All fixtures meet the minimum performance standards,

(b) Evaluators do not note any significant maintainability problems with the proposed fixtures,

(c) Products appear to be installable with little or no rework to existing plumbing,

(d) Products are aesthetically unobjectionable.

H.

Evaluation of Joint Venture Offerors

In the evaluation of responsibility and non-price factors, information submitted for a party to the joint venture will not be evaluated to the extent that the terms of the joint venture agreement limit such party's performance or financial obligations as a party to the Contract contemplated by this Solicitation.