Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF MARCH 10, 2004 FBO #0835
MODIFICATION

R -- Aircraft Technical & Engineering Support - Technical Evaluation Factors

Notice Date

3/8/2004
 

Notice Type

Modification
 

NAICS

541330 — Engineering Services
 

Contracting Office

Defense Contracting Command-Washington(DCC-W), ATTN: Policy and Compliance, 5200 Army Pentagon, Room 1D245, Washington, DC 20310-5200
 

ZIP Code

20310-5200
 

Solicitation Number

W74V8H-04-R-1122
 

Response Due

3/19/2004
 

Archive Date

5/18/2004
 

Point of Contact

Talisa Spottswood, 703-602-3661
 

E-Mail Address

Defense Contracting Command-Washington(DCC-W)
(talisa.spottswood@hqda.army.mil)
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Description

THE PURPOSE OF THIS MODIFICATION IS TO LIST OUT THE EVALUATION FACTORS THAT WILL BE USED TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSALS AND TO ISSUE A CUT OFF DATE FOR QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS SOLCITATION. The solicitation number is W74V8H-04-R-1122. A full copy of t he solicitation can be obtained at http://dccw.hqda.pentagon.mil/services/RFP1.asp Questions regarding this solicitation are due no later than 10:00 am on 12 March 2004. All questions must be submitted via email and must have the RFP number as to subject. Questions may be emailed to talisa.spottswood@hqda.army.mil. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS: The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government and represent the Best Value, price and o ther factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: I. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s prior and on-going experience on projects similar in size and scope to the requirements described in the Statement of Work. The proposal should demonstrate: Specific description of prior and on-going, direct experience in providing senior level science and engineering support to evaluate program technical baselines and assess the architectural design and technical maturity of the technology associated with maj or Air Force aircraft, electronics (avionics, radar, BMC3), and air-launched weapons programs and analysis of alternatives. Demonstrate experience in assisting cost analysts in developing appropriate technical inputs for cost estimating relationships and analogies used in estimates. Demonstrate experience in identifying new and emerging technologies and system acquisition strategies and their likely impact on existing costs. II. TECHNICAL APPROACH The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s comprehensive approach to the project requirements, detailed work plan, and proposed staffing to accomplish each task. Credit will be given for innovations where considered appropriate and feasible for the p roposed area of application. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror has performed a realistic appraisal and identified potential problems in undertaking this type of contractual effort. The Government will also evaluate the Offerorà ¢Â€Â™s outline of state-of-the-art management to be used in managing the project. This factor will be evaluated in terms of comprehension and feasibility and will demonstrate the Offeror’s complete understanding of the project requirements. III. Past Performance Past Performance will be demonstrated by the level of performance on projects of similar size and scope. The Offeror will provide a description of similar projects conducted, reference names and telephone numbers for each of these projects. These require ments include aspects of cost, schedule and performance, including the Offeror’s records of (i) conforming to specifications, statements of work/work performance statements and standards of good workmanship; (ii) forecasting and containing costs on an y previous contracts; (iii) adherence to contract schedule, including the administrative aspect of performance; (iv) commitment to customer satisfaction; (v) businesslike concern for the interests of its customers; and (vi) (for large business only) meetin g small business and small and disadvantaged business subcontracting goals. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the Past Performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal/quote as well as data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not interview all of the sources pro vided by the Offeror it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of proving good past performance r ests with the Offeror. In the event an Offeror has no record of relevant past performance or past performance information is not available the Offeror will receive a neutral evaluation that is neither favorable nor unfavorable. IV. PRICE The Government will evaluate price for completeness and reasonableness. To be complete, the Offeror must provide all data that is necessary to support the quote. The Offeror’s proposed price factors will be evaluated to determine if any are unreason ably high or low in relation to the Offeror’s technical approach and in comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). (a) Evaluation Factors I (Corporate Experience) and II (Technical Approach) are equal. Factors I and II, when combined, are equal to Factor III (Past Performance). Factors I, II, III are significantly more important than price. However, price will be gi ven more importance as the proposals approach technical equality. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS In order to provide the Offeror with an understanding of the value assigned by the Government, the criteria are assigned a relative order of importance. The following adjectival ratings will be used: Exceptional—The proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and approach significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Have exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government and no evident weaknesses with respect to the factor being rated. Fully meets all Government objectives/requirements and does so in a way that provides very low risk, and high probability of success. Risk level — Very Low Good—The proposal demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach exceeds performance or capability standards. Have one or more strengths that will benefit the Government, and there are no evident weaknesses in the proposal with respect to the factor being rated. High quality in most respects, good probability of success; generally exceeds minimum objectives / requirements; some improvement possible or could be further detailed. Risk — Low Acceptable—Proposal demonstrates acceptable understanding of requirements and approach that meets, but does not exceed, performance or capability standards. Have few or no strengths that will benefit the Government, and there are evident weaknesses i n the proposal with respect to the factor being rated. Adequate overall presentation, but some areas lacking in thorough analysis or detail; fair probability of success; generally meets minimum objectives / requirements; improvement possible. Risk Level — Moderate Marginal—Proposal demonstrates shallow understanding of requirements and approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. Fails to marginally meet some objectives / req uirements; significant deficiencies; disadvantages, but correctable; low probability of success; substantial improvement necessary. Risk Level — High. Unsatisfactory—Proposal fails to demonstrate performance or capability standards. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal. The proposal does not meet the requirements of the RFQ with respect to the factor being rated, or ther e are clear deficiencies in the proposal with respect to the factor being rated. Inadequate presentation; fails to meet minimum objectives / requirements. Risk Level — Very High
 

Web Link

Link to FedBizOpps document.
(http://www.eps.gov/spg/USA/DSS-W/DASW01/W74V8H-04-R-1122/listing.html)
 

Place of Performance

Address: Defense Contracting Command-Washington(DCC-W) ATTN: Policy and Compliance, 5200 Army Pentagon, Room 1D245 Washington DC

Zip Code: 20310-5200

Country: US
 

Record

SN00540372-F 20040310/040308233557 (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 |