Technical Evaluation - Comparative Evaluations of Offers.docx
DOCX document 151 KB Posted
- Attached to
- W065--Mobile CT Lease (CTX) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C25725Q0020
About this file
This document is a Technical Evaluation - Comparative Evaluations of Offers for a federal contract opportunity to lease a Mobile CT and coach. The opportunity is a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) set-aside with a solicitation number of 36C25725Q0020, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The evaluation compares offers across technical, past performance, and price factors. Technical factors include the offerors providing details on the proposed CT equipment, trailer/coach, and quality assurance plan. Past performance is evaluated based on references provided by the offerors. Pricing is evaluated for a pro-rated hourly rate during periods of CT non-functionality. The government intends to award the contract representing the best value. Offers are due by December 12, 2024, with a period of performance starting January 30, 2025.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C25725Q0020 0001.pdf | ||
| 36C25725Q0020 0001_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Questions and Responses.pdf | ||
| S02 - 36C25725Q0020 - SF1449.pdf | ||
| 36C25725Q0020_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| VAAR 852.219-75 - VA Notice of Limitations on Subcontracting - Certificate of Compliance for.docx | DOCX document | |
| A1 - Statement of Work - Mobile CT Lease - Austin OPC.pdf |
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
TECHNICAL EVALUATION – COMPARATIVE EVALUTIONS OF OFFERS
MOBILE CT LEASE (CTX)
TECHNICAL:
Contractor/Offeror provided a description of their proposed CT, to include model name/number with specifications (SOW, paragraph 2(b)) ?
Offeror:
A Offeror:
B Offeror:
C
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
Offeror A – Comments/Strengths/Weaknesses:
Offeror B – Comments/Strengths/Weaknesses:
Offeror C – Comments/Strengths/Weaknesses:
Contractor/Offeror provided a description, to include dimensions, of their proposed trailer/coach (SOW, paragraph 2(b)(5)) ?
Offeror:
A Offeror:
B Offeror:
C
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
Contractor/Offeror provided a copy of their quality assurance plan (SOW, paragraph 12) ?
Offeror:
Offeror:
Offeror:
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
PAST PERFORMANCE:
Contractor/Offeror provided past performance references with their offer ?
Offeror:
A Offeror:
B Offeror:
C
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
Offeror B – Comments/Strengths/Weaknesses:
References contacted:
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
PRICE:
Contractor/Offeror provided a pro-rated hourly rate for the decrease amount from the monthly rate for the times the CT is not functioning (SOW, paragraph 1(c)) ?
Offeror:
A Offeror:
B Offeror:
C
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
| Yes: |_| |
| No: |_| |
Offeror B – Comments/Strengths/Weaknesses:
Comparative Evaluations of Offers
Highest rated Offeror:
Evaluation rationale/comments:
Evaluation conducted by:
Name:
Title:
Activity:
Date:
36C25725Q0020 Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 1 of 2
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .