COST EVALUATION. Evaluation points are not awarded for cost. The review of the cost proposal shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the Offeror’s understanding of the work, and the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract. These will consist of a review of the cost portion of an Offeror’s proposal to determine if the overall costs proposed are reasonable and realistic for the work to be performed, if the costs reflect the Offeror’s understandings of the requirements, and if the costs are consistent with the technical proposal. Evaluation of cost proposals will consider but not be limited to the following: - Cost realism and completeness of cost proposal and supporting documentation. - Cost efficiency of proposed Other Direct Costs (ODCs). Offerors are reminded that the U.S. Government is not obligated to award a negotiated contract on the basis of the lowest proposed cost (see FAR 15.101-1) or to the Offeror with the highest technical evaluation score. For this procurement, however, technical proposal merits are considered significantly more important than cost relative to deciding who best might perform the work. Therefore, after the final evaluation of the proposals, the Contracting Officer will make the award to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government, considering both technical and cost factors. It should be noted that estimated cost is an important factor and its importance as an evaluation factor will increase as the degree of equality of technical competence between proposals increases.
COST EVALUATION. Cost is a primary evaluation criterion. Evaluation in this category will be based on the lowest total estimated net cost as calculated according to the methodology in this section and SECTION 18.
COST EVALUATION. [See Section L.6] USAID will evaluate the price quotations based on the following considerations:
COST EVALUATION. The information presented in the Cost Proposal shall be evaluated by the Government to: (i) determine the extent to which the Offeror understands the Government’s requirements; (ii) assess the degree to which the cost included in the cost proposal accurately represents the effort described in the technical proposal;
COST EVALUATION. For Vehicle Lifts, the Financial Proposals for ARI Phoenix; Vehicle Service Group; Liftnow Automotive Equipment; Mohawk Lifts; Snap-On Industrial; and Stertil-Koni USA were evaluated based on average net price per lift capacity (from Market Basket). A maximum of 30 total points were available for the Cost Evaluation. Award The Lead State and Multistate Sourcing Team then determined which proposals were most advantageous to the Lead State and potential Participating Entities and Purchasing Entities. Methods used to make this determination included, but were not limited to, one or more of the following: • Identification of a natural break in total scores • Identification of a minimum scoring threshold above which Proposers are deemed to be adequately qualified • Consideration of the optimal number of Contractors required to successfully supply Deliverables to Participating Entities and Purchasing Entities The chart below provides a snapshot of the total scoring for Vehicle Lifts, including Technical and Financial Proposal scores. EVALUATION SUMMARY RFP for Vehicle Lifts and Garage Associated Equipment Vehicle Lifts Doc554414018 Proposer 1 Proposer 2 Proposer 3 Proposer 4 Proposer 5 Proposer 6 Proposer 7 TECHNICAL EVALUATION AssignedPoints XXX Xxxxxxx, Inc. Vehicle Service Group, LLC Liftnow Automotive Equipment Corp. Mohawk Lifts LLC Parts Authority, LLC Snap-on Industrial, a division of IDSC Holdings Stertil-Koni USA, Inc. Proposer Experience, Skills, and Qualifications 15 13.00 14.00 13.00 14.00 4.00 12.00 14.00 Response to Scope of Work 22 11.00 20.00 19.00 21.00 0.00 16.00 18.00 Approach and Methodology 28 17.00 25.00 23.00 26.00 11.00 19.00 26.00 Implementation and Promotion of the NASPO 5 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 ValuePoint Master Agreement Technical Evaluation Total Score 70 44.00 63.00 59.00 66.00 16.00 50.00 63.00 FINANCIAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION Assigned ARI Phoenix, Vehicle Liftnow Mohawk Lifts Parts Snap-on Stertil-Koni Points Inc. Service Automotive LLC Authority, LLC Industrial, a USA, Inc. Did not meet Financial Proposal Evaluation Total Score 30 30.00 13.70 18.11 9.99 minimum technical 10.84 10.21 score Did not meet TOTAL POINTS 100 74.00 76.70 77.11 75.99 minimum technical 60.84 73.21 score RANK 4 2 1 3 6 5 ARI Phoenix; Vehicle Service Group; Liftnow Automotive Equipment; and Mohawk Lifts also submitted Proposals for consideration for award of Garage Associated Equipment. Their scores for Technical Proposal and Financial Proposal were...
