Technical Evaluation Factors Generator Services.docx
DOCX document 27 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70FBR226Q00000012
About this file
This file is a Technical Evaluation Factors Generator Services document related to a Request for Quote (RFQ) for generator preventative maintenance services at Naval Weapon Station Earle in Colts Neck, New Jersey.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is soliciting generator preventative maintenance services for Building C-54 at the specified location. The base contract period runs from August 19, 2026, through August 18, 2027, with four one-year renewal options extending through August 18, 2031. Questions regarding the RFQ must be submitted by email to Kendall.feaster@fema.dhs.gov with a copy to gennara.mack@fema.dhs.gov no later than Tuesday, June 16, 2026, at 5:00 PM EST. Contractors must submit their responses via email to the same contacts no later than Monday, June 22, 2026, at 5:00 PM EST. No phone inquiries will be accepted.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| GEN PIC.jpg | JPG image | |
| GENPIC3.jpg | JPG image | |
| GENPIC2.jpg | JPG image | |
| 2.2.1 Sol_70FBR226Q00000012.pdf | ||
| Wage Determination.pdf | ||
| 1.1.3 PWS - NWSE- GENERATOR Preventive Maintenance Services.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Evaluation Factors 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 – 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 (PWS) 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 PWS. 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: 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. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .