Attachment_0003_-_Evaluation_Criteria_Waste_Water_Disposal.pdf

W15QKN-17-R-0183 EVALUATION CRITERIA WASTE WATER DISPOSAL

C.1 Basis for Award

C.1.1 The Government plans to award a single firm fixed priced contract as a result of this

Request for Proposal (RFP). The evaluation of quotes shall be conducted utilizing the lowest priced technically acceptable evaluation approach. Selection of a quote for award will be based on an evaluation of quotes in the areas of Technical, Past Performance, and Price with award being made to the quoter whose quote is the lowest priced and is technically acceptable. Under this evaluation approach, a quote would not receive any additional credit for exceeding the established minimum defined requirements of technical acceptability.

C.1.2 The Government intends to award a firm fixed priced call order without discussions, as permitted by FAR 13.106-2 (b)(3). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their quotes.

C.1.3 Minimum Acceptability: If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial quotes are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

C.2 Areas to be Evaluated:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

C.3 Evaluation Approach

Careful, complete, and impartial consideration will be given to all quotes received pursuant to this RFQ. Government personnel will evaluate each quote in the areas described below.

C.3.1 Factor 1: Technical

C.3.1.1 Offerors shall provide a quote that demonstrates the ability to meet all the minimum requirements stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and RFP to provide the services for waste water removal, transportation, repair of waste water tank, and disposal of the waste water. The Offeror’s quote shall also provide a delivery schedule as requested in the PWS for the base year and each option year. The offeror’s quote shall also demonstrate the ability to meet the schedule outlined in the PWS and RFP.

C.3.1.2 the Technical portion of the quote will be rated as ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE based on an assessment of the stated minimum requirements. These items are deemed critical to meet the Government’s requirement. If any one of the requirements is rated as

UNACCEPTABLE, it will result in an overall technical rating of UNACCEPTABLE and the quote will NOT be considered for contract award.

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

C.3.2 Past Performance

C.3.2.1 Offerors may submit a list of pertinent and recent Government orders/contracts for which they were a prime or a major subcontractor. Offerors who submit past orders/contracts shall list the Contract number of past contract efforts as well as relevancy of the past efforts. Offerors shall also provide points of contact information on Procuring Contracting Officer and

Contracting Officer Representative (COR) to include, name, address, phone number, and email address. Since the Government may not necessarily interview any or all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided.

Recent past performance is defined as any contracts awarded within the past three (3) years, or awarded earlier than three (3) years ago, but for which deliveries/performance occurred or were scheduled to occur within the last three (3) years, which are relevant to the effort required by this solicitation.

C.3.2.2 the offeror and its major/key subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their pertinent and recent past performance as it relates to the probability of successful performance under the proposed contract. Major/Key subcontractors are defined as those that will be performing work on more than 25% of the total proposed price. In addition to Past Performance information submitted by offerors, the Government may utilize any or all of the following

Government databases to evaluate past performance: Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information and Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS).

C.3.2.3 Past performance will receive an adjectival rating in accordance with the following table:

Rating Description

Acceptable

Offeror’s past performance is acceptable and pertinent to successfully meet the PWS requirements.

Unacceptable Offeror’s past performance is unacceptable to successfully meet the PWS requirements.

Neutral

No past performance information available, and/or past performance information provided is not pertinent to the proposed effort.

NOTE TO OFFERORS: An Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral past performance.

C.3.3 Price

C.3.3.1 The offeror shall quote separate prices for the base period and each subsequent option period for a total quoted price. Price Inconsistencies: An offer is presumed to represent an offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price, shall be explained in the quote. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and their financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for rejection of the quote.

C.3.3.2 Price will NOT be scored with a color code or any other rating. The Government will evaluate the total quoted price (inclusive of the base period and all option years) for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 13.106-3. The proposed prices for each CLIN, to include Option CLINs, will be added together to achieve one total quoted price.