Technical Evaluation Factors.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Criteria Acceptable Unacceptable

Evaluation Notes

(Why/Why

Not/Comments)

Contractor:

Name of

Evaluator:

Volume I - Technical Acceptability

Factor One: Technical Evaluation

Criteria

The technical proposal must demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the PWS requirements and propose a clear, safe, and compliant method of execution.

Sub-Factor 1.1: Equipment

Inventory, Specifications, and Wind-

Resistance Anchoring

Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes the following as required in PWS Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.4.

Evaluation Focus: Verifies the contractor's immediate access to the specialized fleet, quality standards, and anchoring mechanics required to withstand harsh UTTR desert wind loads.

Acceptable Unacceptable

Why: Where in the Proposal (i.e.

page, paragraph, throughout, etc.)?

OR

Why Not: What part of the PWS did the proposal not fully address?

Evaluation Notes

(Why/Why

Not/Comments)

A. Evaluation Standard A (Standard

Units): Proposes exactly thirty (30) standard portable toilet units. Certifies all units will be in new or like-new condition at PoP start. Standard units possess: internally mounted hand sanitizer dispenser, self-closing doors with inside locks, and screened ventilation ports to exclude pests.

Comments:

B. Evaluation Standard B (Trailer

Units): Proposes exactly two (2) trailer-mounted units. Confirms trailer units consist of a standard unit

(meeting 3.1 specs) secured to a small, movable trailer equipped with a spare tire.

Comments:

C. Evaluation Standard C (Wind

Resistance & Anchoring): Submits an anchoring methodology (stakes, straps, weights, or anchors) engineered to withstand winds of up to

52 knots (60 mph). Plan addresses performance on varied range surfaces

(dirt, gravel, asphalt, concrete).

Comments:

D. Evaluation Standard D (Service

Record Logs): Confirms that a weather-resistant service log will be affixed to the inside door of every unit, structured with dedicated columns for

Date and the signature/initials of the servicing technician.

Comments:

(Why/Why

Not/Comments)

Sub-Factor 1.2: Logistics, Delivery, and Relocation Operations

Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes the following as required in PWS Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6.

Evaluation Focus: Reviews logistical timelines, site-preparation standards, and relocation response times across the geographically dispersed North and South Ranges.

Acceptable Unacceptable

Why: Where in the Proposal (i.e.

page, paragraph, throughout, etc.)?

OR

Why Not: What part of the PWS did the proposal not fully address?

A. Evaluation Standard A

(Mobilization Timeline): Commits to full delivery, placement, and anchoring of all thirty-two (32) units no later than

(NLT) five (5) business days prior to

PoP start.

Comments:

B. Evaluation Standard B (Site

Preparation): Outlines specific procedures to ensure units are placed on stable, level ground. Certifies that no units will be placed directly over or near water sources, storm lines, or wells.

Comments:

C. Evaluation Standard C

(Logistical Cost & Agility): Explicitly acknowledges that all transport, delivery, placement, relocation, and final removal costs are included in the

Firm-Fixed-Price (no fuel surcharges allowed).

(Why/Why

Not/Comments)

D. Evaluation Standard D

(Relocation Compliance): Commits to standard/contractor relocations on the next scheduled service date after written notice; trailer relocations within two (2) business days of emergency

Government relocations;

misplacement corrections within two

(2) business days (or next service date, whichever is first) at contractor expense.

Comments:

Sub-Factor 1.3: Operational

Servicing, Sanitation, and

Maintenance

Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes the following as required in PWS Sections 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.5.1–5.5.8.

Evaluation Focus: Evaluates the weekly sanitation cycle, maintenance response protocols, and compliance with DPG base operating hours.

Acceptable Unacceptable

Why: Where in the Proposal (i.e.

page, paragraph, throughout, etc.)?

OR

Why Not: What part of the PWS did the proposal not fully address?

A. Evaluation Standard A (Work

Schedule Compliance): Commits to weekly cleaning/servicing/repairs on the same business day each week

(coordinated NLT 7 business days prior to PoP). Schedules strictly between 0700 and 1600 MT, Mon–

Thu. Outlines alternate make-up schedule protocol submitted NLT 10 business days prior to any observed holiday falling on a service day.

(Why/Why

Not/Comments)

B. Evaluation Standard B

(Sanitation Standards & Chemical

Safety): Proposes professional, vacuum-sealed pumping equipment to prevent spills/leaks/odors. Certifies compartments recharged using eco-safe, biodegradable, non-formaldehyde products. Details compliant winterization using biodegradable agents prior to temps dropping to/below 32°F (0°C).

Comments:

C. Evaluation Standard C (Cleaning, Restocking, and Log

Documentation): Outlines process for thoroughly sanitizing all interior contact surfaces and outside door handles, restocking toilet paper/hand sanitizer in quantities guaranteed to last until next weekly service, and signing interior service log during every service.

Comments:

D. Evaluation Standard D

(Deficiency Correction & Damage

Timelines): Commits to repairing minor defects immediately during scheduled service; major defects, damage, or pest entry points fully repaired or unit replaced within two (2) business days of discovery/notice;

blown-over units restored/serviced/replaced within one

(1) business day of notice at no additional cost.

Comments:

Evaluator Signature: Acceptable Unacceptable Comments in general: