4120--Replace 187 ton air cooled chiller at the Montgomery Regional Office

ibe any technical difficulties that may be encountered in a project of this type. Provide a narrative of preventative measures or solutions to overcome these issues. Narrative - 5 page maximum Factor 2 - Technical Qualifications. To be Technical Acceptable, the offerors shall identify ALL of the following: Sub-Factor 2(a): Specialized Experience and Technical Competence 1. Describe specialized experience and technical competence in heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) replacement work performed by the Prime and Subcontractor in a federal facility. 2. Describe offeror s ability to obtain the necessary resources to perform this project. These may include, but are not limited to, funding, sub-contractors, subject-matter experts, consultants, and/or specialized trades. 3. Provide a description or documentation of retaining a Metasy Certified Technician who will be providing all connections, testing and certifications of controls hardware. Narrative 2 page maximum Sub-Factor 2(b): Key Personnel and Management Approach Include a narrative which describes the relevant experience of: Firm s key personnel and experience, to include at least: Project Manager - Similar projects worked on - Education and /or Certification (s) Field Superintendent - Similar projects worked on - Education and/or Certification(s) Other Relevant Firm Employees - Similar projects worked on - Education and/or Certification (s) Overall Team- Discuss the planned use of: Subcontractors: Key trades to be subcontracted Proposed subcontractors, if firms already determined Similar projects worked on Narrative 3 page maximum Factor 3 Relevant and Recent Past Performance. A maximum of three (3) past performance projects completed by the Prime Contractor shall be submitted to the Government. Each past performance shall contain the following: Brief project description. List of subcontractors. Initial/Final award amount. State any change orders if occurred during the project performance. Project Contracting Officer Representative or Client. The projects shall be recent (completion date to be within 5 years of the solicitation release date), relevant, and meet or exceed the proposed magnitude and scope of the proposed project. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Note: The Evaluation Team may also use information obtained from Past Performance Information Retrieval System PPIRS http://www.ppirs.gov/ as a basis for evaluating this factor. Narrative - 5 page maximum Factor 4 Schedule and Impact to Facility Describe a plan to execute the shutdown of the existing chiller system and how the contractor will keep the building in operation at all times. Submit a preliminary schedule for performance satisfying the requirements of this project. A practicable schedule showing the order in which the Contractor proposes to perform the work, and the dates on which the Contractor contemplates starting and completing the several salient features of the work (including acquiring materials, mobilization, demolition, installation, finalization, etc.). Most importantly, the schedule should show length of downtime required. The schedule shall show key milestone dates and outages for switchover and start-up of equipment. Narrative - 5 page maximum Factor 5 Warranty Support Describe the organization, process and procedures to be established, implemented and carried out for warranty support. Narrative - 1 page maximum Each offeror shall submit a narrative which demonstrates how the offeror intends to accomplish each of the requirements as stated in the Statement of Work and Evaluation Factors. Technical Rating Scheme Each of the Factors will receive one of the ratings defined below. These ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the project in its entirety. A rating of unacceptable for either standard will equate to an unacceptable rating for each of the factors and the proposal will not be further evaluated. Adjectival Rating Standards Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Past Performance Rating Scheme: Offerors 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown shall be considered neutral. If a rating of unacceptable for the past performance factor is assessed, the entire proposal will be determined unacceptable, and will not be further evaluated. Past Performance Ratings Rating Description Acceptable The Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror s performance record is unknown. Unacceptable Based on the offeror s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort Neutral Offerors 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. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals/quote meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. The evaluation will be conducted by receiving all proposals submitted and reviewing the lowest price proposal/quote to verify that that proposal/quote meets all solicitation requirements to include the evaluation criteria. If that proposal/quote does not meet the solicitation requirements, then the evaluation team will move on to reviewing the next lowest proposal/quote and proceed in the same manner until a proposal/quote meets all requirements.