Attachment_1.docx
DOCX document 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- N2O Analyzers for CTTF & HTTF Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SOL-CI-15-00039
About this file
Amendment 02 - Attachment 1
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CTTF_Layout.pdf | ||
| HTTF_Layouts.pdf | ||
| Solicitation_Cover_Letter.doc | DOC document | |
| Sol_SOL-CI-15-00039_Amd_000003.pdf | ||
| Amendment_03_-_Page_3.pdf | ||
| Sol_SOL-CI-15-00039_Amd_000002.pdf | ||
| Page_3_plus_drawings.pdf | ||
| Sol_SOL-CI-15-00039_Amd_000001.pdf | ||
| Solicitation_Cover_Letter.pdf | ||
| Attachment_B_-_Technical_Evaluation.pdf | ||
| Sol_SOL-CI-15-00039.pdf | ||
| Attachment_A_-_N2O_Analyzer_SOW_for_CTTF_HTF_Final2.pdf | ||
| Attachment_C_-_Proposal_Instructions.pdf | ||
| Attachment_D_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SOL-CI-15-00039
Amendment 02
Section M: Provision, EPA-M-15-101, is incorporated as follows:
EPA-M-15-101 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR CONTRACT AWARD
(a) The Government will make award to the responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government cost or other factors considered. For this solicitation, all evaluation factors other than cost or price when combined are significantly more important than cost or price.
(b) Evaluation factors and significant subfactors to determine quality of product or service:
1. Technical Capability: The following subfactors shall be utilized to assess the offeror’s technical capability:
· Subfactor 1.1 – Products/Services: Degree to which the proposed Laser Based N2O Analyzer meets or exceeds the minimum requirements identified in Attachment A, Statement of Work.
· Subfactor 1.2 – Management Approach: Degree to which the proposed Project Management Plan optimize the accomplishments of the requirements identified in the Statement of Work.
· Subfactor 1.3 – Corporate Experience: Describe corporate experience on projects completed or in progress, within the past three (3) years that are similar in technical scope, dollar value and complexity to that covered under the Statement of Work.
2. Past Performance: Offerors shall provide the Past Performance Questionnaire identified in Attachment D to at least three (3) references for projects completed or in progress, within the previous three (3) years, that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to that covered under this Statement of Work (SOW).
3. Price Evaluation: Offerors shall identify pricing for each line item identified as a base item and an optional item as provided in the table contained in Clause B-1, Identification of Supplies and/or Services. Proposals will be evaluated using the overall fixed total price of both the BASE and OPTIONAL items.
(c) For purposes of evaluating proposals, all evaluation factors when combined (including past performance) are significantly more important than price.
(d) Evaluation rating method will be as follows:
In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) the EPA will use the following adjectival ratings in its evaluation of all technical factors other than Past Performance.
Combined Technical/Risk Rating
| Rating |
| Description |
| Outstanding |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. |
| Good |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |
| Acceptable |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses do not outweigh one another or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Marginal |
| Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not outweighed by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. |
| Unacceptable |
| Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unacceptable for purposes of an award |
EPA will use the following adjectival ratings in its evaluation of the past performance factor:
Performance Confidence Assessment
| Rating |
| Description |
| Substantial Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Satisfactory Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| Limited Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. |
| No Confidence |
| Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. |
| Unknown Confidence (Neutral) |
| No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .