Technical Evaluation Factors for Forklift Maintenance Earle Warehouse.pdf

Evaluation Factors For Forklift Maintenance for R2 Earle warehouse

Dated: July 28, 2026

The Government will award a fixed-price purchase order resulting from this solicitation to the

Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. This procurement is being conducted in accordance with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13.5. The acquisition will be a best value contract. Offerors are cautioned that award(s) may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced proposal.

The Government will evaluate proposal submissions based on the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 – Technical Specifications

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Quality Control Plan

Factor 4 – Price

All non-price factors, when combined, are slightly more important than price.

Factor 1: Technical Specifications

Vendors will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate in their proposed management approach to perform and support the Performance Work Statement (SOW) requirements. This section of the vendor’s proposal shall address information regarding how the proposal logistical support task areas will be performed, the various resources that will be used to facilitate performance, and the identification of potential difficulties in conducting the work with practical suggestions for overcoming these difficulties.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Offerors shall provide two (2) past performance examples on recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar requirements to the services under the SOW. Past performance must be from contracts completed within the last three (3) years or from contracts that are currently in progress.

The provided past performance examples should demonstrate performance in delivering similar services.

FEMA reserves the right to utilize past performance information other than the information submitted with the quotations received in conducting the evaluation such as CPARS.

Factor 3: Quality Control Plan

The technical evaluation will consider the merits of the proposed quality control plan. Consideration will be given to how well the quality control plan demonstrates the offeror’s ability to propose and execute a quality control plan, whereby the contractor manages and monitors the process and takes the appropriate corrective action to correct performance to meet program objectives. Consideration will be given to how well the plan demonstrates that the offeror will provide effective quality control for all requirements of the SOW

Consideration will be given to how well the quality control plan discusses the offeror’s policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the contract requirements and its methods of documenting and enforcing quality control procedures of both the prime contractor and subcontractors.

Factor 4: Price

The price proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness through comparison with other proposed prices and may include other price analysis techniques.

The price proposal will not be given a confidence rating, but unit prices and discounts will be evaluated to ensure prices are fair and reasonable.

RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Excellent in all respects; offers one or more significant strengths not offset by weaknesses; significantly exceeded performance or capability standards;

performance areas assessed had very few minor issues or concerns; very good probability of success with overall very low degree of risk in meeting the

Government’s requirements

Good High quality in most respects; offers one or more strengths not offset by weaknesses;

exceeded some performance or capability standards; the performance areas assessed had few minor issues or concerns; good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Satisfactory Adequate quality, demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards; performance areas assessed contain minor issues or concerns; moderate degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Marginal Overall quality cannot be determined due to errors, omissions, or deficiencies; only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal performance; high degree of risk in successfully meeting the Government’s requirements.

Unacceptable Quotation contains major errors, omissions, or deficiencies; fails to meet performance or capability standards; an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.