W912EF26QA009 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors.pdf

Factor 1. Past Performance

• The Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance as outlined in FAR Subpart 13.106.

• Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Entity Information from SAM.gov, Electronic Subcontract Reporting

System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

• Recency: Past Performance considered for review shall not exceed three (3) years from the date the solicitation is issued.

• Relevancy: The Government will conduct a performance assessment based on the relevancy of the Offeror’s current and past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors.

Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty (20) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. The Offeror shall submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, signed letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered.

• Offerors must fill-out the attached “Offeror Experience Form” to describe the projects in which the offerors have relevant Elevator Maintenance experience. Past Performance information submitted by the offeror that does not use the “Offeror Experience Form” will not be considered. Limit your submission to at least one but no more than three project examples performed in the past three years.

• Relevant projects may include:

• Experience providing 24/7 surveillance and monitoring services for elevators.

• Experience with elevator operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and modernization.

• Experience with rigorous safety testing, inspections, and obtaining certifications for elevator systems.

• Specific experience with both hydraulic and traction elevator technologies.

• Developing and implementing emergency response plans for elevator entrapments and other incidents along with a thorough understanding of relevant elevator codes and regulations (e.g., ASME A17.1 & A17.2)

Past Performance for Factor 1 will be evaluated according to the following scale:

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305

(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

Factor 2. Technical Capability

This factor evaluates the offeror’s technical documentation establishing that the offeror understands the performance work statement and can perform the required elevator maintenance services (and other requirements) as outlines in the Performance Work Statement. This factor is rated as acceptable or unacceptable The documentation provided must be rated as acceptable for the offer to be considered for award. The contractor must provide the following:

• Certificate of Insurance;

• Certificate showing the current State of Washington Elevator Journeyman License; and

• If using a major subcontractor personnel to meet this requirement, a letter of commitment from the proposed subcontractor.

Technical Capability for Factor 2 will be evaluated according to the following scale:

Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

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

Factor 3. Quote Price

Price analysis will be used to determine the reasonableness of total evaluated price to support the selection of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror. Once offers are determined to be technically acceptable (meets all solicitation requirements and receives an acceptable past performance rating and technical capability), offers will be evaluated comparatively to other offers to determine lowest overall price, in accordance with FAR 13.106-2(b)(3).

Rating Description

Acceptable*

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort(s), or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.