MODIFICATION
A -- Micro-Compass Magnetometer
- Notice Date
- 7/18/2007
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 541710
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
- Contracting Office
- General Services Administration, Federal Technology Service (FTS), Federal Technology Service (9T), 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA, 94102, UNITED STATES
- ZIP Code
- 00000
- Solicitation Number
- 9T7ZDAIS717
- Response Due
- 7/30/2007
- Archive Date
- 8/14/2007
- Point of Contact
- Rachel Hier, Senior Contracting Officer, Phone (415)522-4569, Fax (415)522-4504, - Rachel Hier, Senior Contracting Officer, Phone (415)522-4569, Fax (415)522-4504,
- E-Mail Address
-
rachel.hier@gsa.gov, rachel.hier@gsa.gov
- Description
- The Contractor shall furnish all personnel, material, and equipment necessary to successfully perform business management, systems engineering, software development and prototype development for the Micro Compass Magnetometer (MCM). Equipment provided by the Contractor includes tools for micro electromechanical system (MEMS) design, lithographic, deposition and processing; silicon MEMS fabrication; measurement and test; and packaging. ***See attached solicitation package for complete details*** ***Amend 01 ? Contact Rachel Hier via email to request a copy of the solicitation package.*** ***Amen 02 ? Corrected Section M*** Section M Evaluation Factors for Award Directions, Basis for Award and Contractor Guidelines: All prospective Offerors should prepare a detailed response to this RFQ based on the objectives and requirements identified. The Government?s contract objective is to obtain the highest technical quality necessary to develop and demonstrate a Microcompass Magnetometer (MCM) involving Micro Electromechanical System (MEMS) realizations of ultrasensitive magnetometers, with a realistic and reasonable cost. To meet this objective the GSA anticipates awarding a single commercial purchase order to the sole responsible offeror, whose offer conforming to the solicitation, judged to represent the ?Best Value? to the Government. The Contracting Officer will make a best value determination with the assistance of BCBL-H technical personnel, considering both price and non-price factors. This evaluation will include past performance and experience as described in the below detailed evaluation criteria and other Department of Defense policies, procedures, and directives. Offerors will receive an overall rating for each area of evaluation in relation to the non-cost/price and cost/price areas of assessment by the respective evaluation panels. The non-cost/price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price; however, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. Selection and Evaluation Criteria: The selection and evaluation criteria for the non-cost/price and cost/price evaluation areas are outlined below. Each area of evaluation will include an assessment of risk (see General Note 7). Offerors are hereby notified that the evaluation factors and major sub factors within each area are identified below. This document contains sufficient evaluation criteria that offerors can draw adequate correlation between the stated evaluation criteria herein and any sub factors that may be evaluated equally for all responsive quotations received. It is essential that offerors furnish the Government with adequate and specific quotations. Cursory responses or responses which merely reiterate or reformulate Section C will not be considered as being responsive to this solicitation. Offerors are advised that any evaluation sub factors receiving a ?Marginal? or ?Unsatisfactory? rating may have a disproportionate negative impact on the overall factor rating and/or risk assessment. Any quotes failing to offer a solution to one or more sub factors may be deemed not to have met the minimum mandatory requirements and may be eliminated from further consideration. Any offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified as soon as practicable by the Contracting Officer. Area of Evaluation: Non-Cost/Price Factors: Factor: Technical Solution and Management Approach: The evaluation of an offeror?s Technical Solution and Management Approach shall be based on the offeror?s demonstrated ability to accomplish the requirements identified in Section C in a timely, comprehensive, and successful manner. In addition, the Government will assess the offeror?s understanding of the requirement and Government objectives. Offerors should clearly describe, through the submission of a detailed Statement of Work, their ability to achieve or exceed the required performance standards, establish quality assurance and maintain quality control and display their ability to manage The Micro-Compass Magnetometer (see General Note 1). Sub factor: Quality Assurance and Quality Control: Evaluation of the offeror?s proposed quality assurance and quality control plan and/or procedures shall assess the degree to which the offeror?s planned quality assurance and quality control planned approach demonstrates their ability to successfully ensure proper completion of all required or proposed objectives. Offeror?s should include a description and method, including automated tools, reconcilable reports, and/or manual reports by which the requirements identified in Section C will be achieved or exceeded. Factor: Past Performance and Past Experience: The Government will evaluate both an offeror?s ?Past Performance,? which relates to how well a contractor performs on projects, and its ?Past Experience,? which relates to whether or not the contractor has performed the same or similar work. The Government considers past performance and past experience as key indicators for predicting future performance. Offerors with absence or no past performance history will not be disqualified; however; past performance is a critical factor in this solicitation. Offerors with no recent or relevant performance history will receive a neutral rating in this area of evaluation. A neutral rating could be considered less favorable than a favorable past performance score (see Attachment #2). Sub factor: Past Performance: For the purpose of evaluation of past performance, offerors shall define their business arrangements and relationships such as joint ventures, teaming partners (arrangements) and major subcontractors. Each offeror shall provide two recent, relevant examples of past performance. Include the name of the project, point-of-contact names with phone number and email addresses, contract dollar amount and periods of performance. Area of Evaluation: Cost/Price Factors: The Government will conduct an appropriate cost/price analysis to determine whether the proposed cost/price is fair and reasonable. Cost or price becomes more significant between offers as the evaluated non-cost/price quotations of offerors reach equality (see General Note 2). Factor: Cost Realism and Completeness: The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror?s proposed total cost/price is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and if the offeror?s cost/price quotation is consistent with the various elements of the offeror?s technical proposal, considering the required level of effort. The offeror?s cost/price quotation will also be evaluated for completeness or responsiveness in addressing all Government requirements and/or proposed solutions. Cost/price must be submitted in sufficient detail to allow traceability and a complete analysis and evaluation of all elements. Offerors cost/price quotations will be compared against all aspects of the technical proposal and the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) to aid in determining cost/price reasonableness. Areas to be considered will include, but not be limited to: clarity of proposed cost/price elements, cost increases and/or decreases (over runs and/or under runs), experience on previous and/or current contracts, past/present cost savings and variation of cost/price as it relates to the IGCE, historical data and/or current market analysis. Factor: Cost Reasonableness: Degree to which offeror?s proposed total cost/price is reasonable. The cost reasonable evaluation will take into consideration the results of the cost realism analysis and overall cost reasonableness based upon the total proposed prices and the degree to which the offeror?s proposed costs/prices indicate a clear understanding of and sound approach to meeting the objectives and requirements of this solicitation. The Government will not make an award at a price premium it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superior performance prospects of any quotation. The Government does not anticipate the need to request additional information after the closing date of the RFQ; however, clarifications and/or discussions may be required. Offerors should identify within their cost/price quotation and technical proposal, the appropriate point of contact(s) should clarifications or discussions become required. Late Quotation Provision: In order for your quotation to be considered for award by the Government, your quotation must be received by the Contracting Officer at the place and time specified, or it will be considered late and handled in accordance with FAR 15.208. Note 1: The Government reserves the right to amend or cancel this solicitation and issue a new solicitation with respect to any individual item in the event quotations received and the Government's requirements indicate that alternative services, technical approaches or different quantities of services should be acquired. Note 2: Cost/price is a substantial evaluation criterion and offerors are hereby notified that upon an in-depth technical evaluation, appropriate scores will be assigned in non-price/non-cost areas. Cost/price scores will be assigned by formula. The lowest acceptable proposed cost/price to the Government will receive the highest cost/price score. The higher proposed costs/prices will receive proportionately lower scores. After adding each offeror's scores for cost/price and other areas, award will be made to the offeror which receives the highest total weighted score. However, the Government reserves the right to examine the technical point scores to determine whether a point differential between offerors represents any actual significant difference in technical merit. If it does not, then award may be made to an offeror with a lower cost or priced quotation, even though its total weighted point score is lower. Additionally, all offerors are hereby notified that an acceptable quotation with the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher-priced quotation provides the Government a greater overall benefit. Note 3: The Government intends to award without discussions and reserves the right to award a contract immediately following the conclusion of the evaluation of initial offers without clarifications, discussions or negotiations if determined in the best interest of the Government by the Contracting Officer. Therefore, it is critical that each offeror be fully responsive to the solicitation, its provisions and submits its best quotation initially. Note 4: Proposal and/or quotation information submitted may be used to assess other areas of evaluation regarding cost/price and/or non-price factors. Note 5: Non-price factors will be reviewed to determine consistency with cost/price factors and to assess the offeror?s understanding of the overall project as outlined in this RFQ. Note 6: Each offeror should strive to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Government that the offeror has provided a technical solution and management approach that will ensure successful performance of all objectives. Note 7: The Government will conduct an assessment of risk for all quotations received. Risk is defined as the likelihood that the Offeror?s proposed solution would successfully meet the requirements identified. Evaluation of the Offeror?s ability to mange risks shall be demonstrated by detailing how each of the risks associated with this BCBL-H objective can be mitigated through corrective actions, work around alternatives, scheduling, program management alternatives, scheduling, costing, trending, impacts, etc. Risk will be evaluated throughout the evaluation process and will include but not be limited to considerations of management actions, company policies, knowledge and specific experience in the business management, systems engineering, software development and prototype development for the Micro Compass Magnetometer and any other method by which the offeror is able to demonstrate its ability to manage risks and reduce the impacts and/or costs to the Government. In addition, any identified risk within any aspect of an Offeror?s proposed solution will be analyzed as to its potential impact and/or cost to the BCBL-H mission and Government. ***Amend 03 ? Clarification of Contract Type*** As described in Section L, FAR Clause 52.216-1, the Government contemplates award of a Fixed-Price Incentive (Firm Target) contract. However, in response to the requirements identified in Section B of this solicitation, offerors may propose any of the following contract types: Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Plus Award Fee, Cost Plus Incentive Fee, Firm Fixed Price, Fixed Price Incentive or any combination thereto. ***Amend 04 ? Offer Due Date***Block 8 of the SF 1449 is hereby changed from 3:00 PM PDT on July 23, 2007 to 3:00 PM PDT on July 30, 2007.
- Place of Performance
- Address: Battle Command Battle Lab ? Fort Huachuca (BCBL-H), Special Programs Branch, 550 Cibeque Street, Bldg. 61730 Room 148, Ft Huachuca, Arizona,
- Zip Code: 85613
- Country: UNITED STATES
- Zip Code: 85613
- Record
- SN01346007-W 20070720/070718222653 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |