MODIFICATION
65 -- Medical Training Equipment Modification P00001- Addition of Evaluation Criteria
- Notice Date
- 9/28/2005
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 423450
— Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
- Contracting Office
- USPFO for Iowa, Camp Dodge, 7700 NW Beaver Drive, Johnston, IA 50131-1902
- ZIP Code
- 50131-1902
- Solicitation Number
- W912LP-05-R-0013
- Response Due
- 9/30/2005
- Archive Date
- 11/29/2005
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- 1.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY. The evaluation of qualifying proposals will consist of three parts, 1.1.1 The SSEB will evaluate an offeror's Present/Past Performance at a factor level that most accurately defines the offeror's performance risk considering all potential evaluation criteria identified in this section. 1.1.2 The SSEB will evaluate an offeror's technical proposal using a color rating that combines technical merit and proposal risk that most accurately defines the offeror's performance risk. 1.1.3 The SSEB will evaluate price and assign a go or no/go rating to each proposal. 1.2 The following process will be used to determine the best value for selection of the medical training equipment award. 1.2.1 To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation Price with Past/Present Performance and Technical. Past Performance and technical are rated higher than the price factor with technical significantly mor e important than past performance. The firms that represent the best value to the Government will be selected for award. 1.2.2 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contracts without discussions, therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. 1.2.3 If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in th e competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. 1.2.4 The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at any time prior to award; award a contract to other than the offeror submitting the highest technically rated; and award contracts to offerors submitting a proposal determined by the Government to be the most advantageous (best value) to the Government. 1.2.5 The Contracting Specialist will conduct a proposal compliance review before the convening of the Source Selection Board and refer any non-compliant proposals to the Contracting Officer and/or SSA for determination of adequacy. Failure to comply with solicitation instructions (outlined in the solicitation) will result in the proposal being found non-responsive, rejected and eliminated from further consideration for award. 1.2.6 A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award. 2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA 2.1 PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 2.1.1 The SSEB will conduct a performance risk assessment based upon the past performance of the offeror as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the work required by the solicitation. The evaluation will consider the offeror's pa st/present performance considering currency, relevancy, sources, context, and trends to include but not limited to: 2.1.1.1 Offerors business practices 2.1.1.2 Customer relationship 2.1.1.3 Ability to provide the requested product 2.1.1.4 Prior experience 2.1.1.5 Adherence to schedule 2.1.1.6 Quality of contractors team 2.1.2 In conducting the performance risk assessment, the SSEB may use data provided by the offeror, and data obtained from other sources. The contracting firm should provide the Government with the most current past performance references. A referenc e name, contract number, phone number, fax number and/or e-mail address should be submitted to allow the Gov ernment to obtain adequate past performance information. The evaluator may: evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the offeror's references; use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources, to include but not limited to Government databases; or reliance upon personal business experience with the offeror. The evaluation will also consider information provided relative to corrective actions taken to resolve problems on pas t or existing contracts. The evaluators may contact references and parties other than those identified by the offeror, and information received may be used in the evaluation of the offerors past performance. While the government may elect to consider d ata obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current, accurate and complete past/present performance information rests with the offeror. 2.1.3 An offeror with no past performance shall be evaluated as neutral. However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant past/present performance history, while rated neutral in past/present performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposal of other offerors. Offerors without previous Government contracts shall also be rated neutral. 2.1.4 Currency and Trends: The SSEB will consider the currency and trends of the performance information while conducting its performance evaluation. For the purpose of this solicitation, currency is performance occurring within the last three (3) year s prior to the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period. For example, performance information for work occurring between September of 2002 and the date of the proposal may have greater importance than performance information for work occurring from August of 2000 through August 2002. 2.1.5 Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, e.g., the relevance of an offeror's past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunit y to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors. 2.1.6 In the evaluation of Past Performance, the evaluator will use the following adjectives and related definitions to define the performance risk the contractor poses. PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE RATINGS ARE: Very Low Risk Offers past/present performance record provides essentially no doubt that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Low Risk Offers past/present performance record provides little doubt that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Moderate Risk Offers past/present performance record, although satisfactory, provides some doubt that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. High Risk Offers past/present performance record provides substantial doubt that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Neutral/Unknown Risk The offer has no relevant past performance record. A through search was unable to identify any past/present performance information 2.2 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION 2.2.1 The evaluation of each technical proposal will access and measure the ability of the offeror to provide the specified requirements outlined the Request for Proposal (RFP). The areas of significance are: 1. Ability to meet the salient physical and functional performance characteristics specified in the solicitation. 2. Delivery 2.2.2 ABILITY TO MEET THE SALIENT PHYSICAL AND FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS SPECIFIED IN THE Solicitation. The vendor shall clearly identify the proposed item by brand name, if any; and the make or model number. The vendor should include descriptive literature such as illustrations, or a clear reference to descriptive data or information. The vendor must clearly describe any modification that the offeror plans to make in the specifications. The Contracting Officer will evaluate equal products on the basis of information furnished by the offeror or identified in the offer and reasonably available to the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or obtaining any information not identified in the offer. Unless the offeror clearl y indicates in its offer that the product being offered is an equal product, the offeror shall provide the brand name product referenced in the solicitation. 2.2.3 DELIVERY- The vendor shall also identify the number of days it will take to provide the requested items. Failure to do so will indicate an acceptance of a delivery date 45 days ARO. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS: Color Rating Evaluation Criteria Blue Proposal meets all solicitation requirements, demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and has salient features that offer significant advantages to the Government. Excellent in all respects. Advantages/strengths not offset by dis advantages/weaknesses. Very good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting Government requirements. Green Proposal meets solicitation requirements and demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirements but does not offer significant advantages to the Government over basic RFP requirements. Where there were areas of concern, clarifications given by contractor were acceptable. Disadvantages/weaknesses are not significant. Good probability of success with overall low to moderate degree of risk in meeting the Government requirements. Yellow Proposal meets some but not all the RFP requirements, but offers disadvantages (weaknesses) outweighing other advantages (strengths). Example little or no experience cited; weak proposal; mimics RFP language rather than expressing offerors approach or understanding of the RFP. Probability of success considered less than full confidence (high risk) Pink Proposal meets some but not all the RFP requirements. Proposal does not address all required RFP criteria; little or no experience to the extent that overall quality cannot be determined because of errors, omissions or deficiencies that may be capabl e of being corrected without a major rewrite or revision of proposal. Probability of success is questionable without further explanation by offeror. (unacceptable risk). Red Proposal demonstrates little to no understanding of the requirements; or approach fails to adequately meet acceptable performance expectations. Proposal contains major errors; omissions or deficiencies and these conditions cannot be corrected without a m ajor rewrite or resubmission. There is an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Government's requirements 2.3 PRICE EVALUATION - The Source Selection Board will conduct comparative evaluations of offers concerning price. The determination that a proposed price is reasonable should be based on competitive quotation/offers. If the price is determined to be rea sonable in comparison to the other offerers price a GO rating will be given, if found to be unreasonable, a NO GO rating will be assigned to the price evaluation factor. 2.3.1 Discounts: Prompt payment discounts will not be considered in the evaluation of offers. 2.3.2 Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). 3.0 Procedures for Recording the Evaluation (e.g. Worksheets for recording Evaluators ratings with supportive narrative). 3.1 Each SSEB memb er shall prepare an individual worksheet for each offeror on the factors of Past Performance and Technical. 3.2 Upon the completion of the individual evaluations of Past Performance and Technical Information, the Chairman will assemble the board members. The group will reach a consensus overall rating in Past Performance and Technical Factors for each offeror. Overall strengths and weaknesses will be combined on the consensus rating sheet(s). In the event the group cannot reach a consensus rating on an individual offeror, majority and minority reports will be prepared. 3.3 The SSEB will rate each offeror independently and not make comparisons to other offerors concerning Past Performance and Technical. SSEB will prepare a summary of findings providing an overview of each offers ratings, strengths and weakness, and othe r pertinent facts. This summary and all SSEB documentation shall be presented to the SSA. The SSA will make any comparative analysis and determine which proposal offers best value to the Government.
- Place of Performance
- Address: USPFO for Iowa Camp Dodge, 7105 NW 70th Ave Johnston IA
- Zip Code: 50131-1824
- Country: US
- Zip Code: 50131-1824
- Record
- SN00905775-W 20050930/050928211946 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |