Attachment # 06-Evaluation Factors.pdf

Evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant RFP requirements and objectives having an impact on the source selection decision and which are expected to be discriminators or are required by statute/regulation. They are the uniform baseline against which each offeror’s proposal is evaluated, allowing the Government to make a best value determination. The evaluation factors and subfactors will be set forth in the solicitation in enough depth to communicate how requirements will be evaluated. The evaluation factors and subfactors will be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation’s instructions to offerors. If subfactors are used, they will be evaluated separately. The SSEB will establish the factors and subfactors to be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. These factors and subfactors will identify the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance. In accordance with the referenced Source Selection Procedures, cost or price and the acceptability of the product or service described herein will be evaluated. In this LPTA acquisition, the following three factors will be evaluated.

(1) Factor 1: Technical Acceptability

(2) Factor 2: Technical Qualifications of Proposed Staffing

(3) Factor 3: Past Performance Acceptability

The SSEB will evaluate the Technical Acceptability (non-cost) factors on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The solicitation will identify the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance. The Contractor must be rated Acceptable in all factors in order to be eligible for award.

Details of the criteria to be evaluated under each factor are as follows:

Technical Acceptability: The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. More than one “technical” factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFP. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The evaluation team will evaluate the offeror’s proposal against the minimum requirements established by the RFP to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings in the table below.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability: To be Technically Acceptable the Contractor shall submit with its offer a written Technical Management plan to demonstrate its understanding and capabilities of completing all work in accordance with the performance work statement. The plan shall identify all work that can be accomplished with in-house resources and demonstrate that the Contractor is capable of fulfilling any project requirements that cannot be self-performed. The Technical Management plan shall identify how the offeror will directly superintend the work, perform project and quality control management, and comply with safety and environmental regulations. Any project requirements that cannot be self-performed shall be identified (e.g. subcontractors list and manufacturers of key material components for the project). The offeror shall provide this information with its company proposal submission.

Factor 2: Technical Qualifications of Proposed Staffing: To be Technically Acceptable, the Contractor shall submit the following with its offer:

(a) Written qualification statement for the individual who will be functioning as the project manager, demonstrating 3 years of project management experience for projects similar in size and nature to the work described in the statement of work.

(b) The contractor shall provide sufficient documentation of the certifications, licenses, and specific experience of all technicians to work on the project. These qualifications shall demonstrate the ability of the technicians to manage, operate, and execute the quality assurance requirements for the service and repair of Trane CenTraVac water cooled chillers.

(c) The contractor shall provide sufficient documentation of the certifications, licenses, and specific experience for all Program Managers. All Program Managers are required to have a minimum of three years of experience executing the designated program requirements. Safety Manager(s) shall have an OSHA 30 hour course certification. Key personnel designated for these assignments must be designated by the principle in writing. Designees may perform multiple responsibilities

Factor 3: Past Performance Acceptability: The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA process, unless waived by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii). It shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply.

Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the “Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method” in the table at (c) below. In rating the past performance, the following will be considered:

(a) Recency & Relevancy: Past performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired.

(b) Quality of Historical Contracts: Second, the past performance evaluation will determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts.

(c) Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method:

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

(d) To be rated Acceptable, the Contractor shall submit at least three (3) but no more than five (5) previously awarded and completed contracts of similar size and scope that are deemed to meet recency, relevancy and quality requirements. For this acquisition, recency refers to contracts awarded and completed within the last three (3) years. Relevancy refers to contracts of similar size to this acquisition for service and repair to Trane water cooled chillers. Quality refers to contracts that were satisfactorily completed within the designated PoP. All submissions shall include the following information:

1. The date of the service contract award, and the contract award amount in dollars.

2. The date of the contract completion, and the final contract amount, in dollars.

3. A brief description of the contract scope of work.

4. Identification of the agency/entity/company for which work was performed and at least one point-of-contact (POC) at the organization that awarded the submitted contract, to include POC’s name, e-mail address and telephone number.

Price:

(a) Lowest Price: Proposals not technically acceptable will be removed from consideration, and award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable responsible contractor. The LPTA procedure is applied to known, firm requirements, usually readily available in the commercial marketplace where a fair and reasonable price determination is based on adequate price competition. A price analysis will be conducted to determine the total evaluated price to support the selection of the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror. When contracting on a firm-fixed-price basis, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis since competition normally establishes price reasonableness, and a cost analysis need not be performed.

(b) Requested Price Information: All pricing shall be commensurate with established labor hour rates as contained within Davis Bacon Department of Labor Wage rate determination for the Construction Wage Rate Requirement Statute. The offeror’s proposed labor categories and labor rates will be evaluated. The submission of a completed Construction Cost Estimate form will be requested with each proposal. The submission of certified cost or pricing data will not be required for this acquisition since it is expected to be under the TINA threshold and there is expected to be adequate price competition.

(c) Fair Market Price: This acquisition is intended to be a 100% small business set-aside. In accordance with FAR 19.202-6 and FAR 19.501(g), a contract may not be awarded as a result of a small business set-aside if the cost to the awarding agency exceeds the fair market price.

Basis for Award and Summary of Evaluation Factors and Subfactors:

(1) Proposals will first be evaluated on the basis of technical acceptability, which will be determined by evaluating both the Technical Acceptability and Past Performance Acceptability factors and associated subfactors on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

(2) The evaluation factors include Technical Acceptability, Past Performance Acceptability and Price. The Technical Acceptability Subfactors include Subfactor 1.1 – Technical Construction Capability and Subfactor 1.2 - Technical Qualifications of Proposed Staffing.

(3) Past Performance information will be provided by the offerors to show their history of successfully performing contracts of similar size and scope to the currently required effort and to determine the quality of their relevant, recent past performance. Past Performance evaluations will investigate information furnished by the offerors to ensure they have consistently demonstrated a commitment to administration, customer satisfaction, timely delivery, and quality goods and services in prior contracts of similar scope and complexity. This is a matter of judgment and will be a subjective assessment based on investigative findings.

(4) Only the proposals found to be technically acceptable will be further evaluated for award.

This means a proposal is “acceptable” for all factors.

(5) Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness.

(6) Contract Award will be made to the responsible vendor that offers the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal.