Evaluation_Criteria_Vendor_Form.pdf
PDF 94 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 140F0419Q0113
About this file
Evaluation Sheet
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_140F0419Q0113.pdf | ||
| 2019_Scope_of_Work_Hexazinone_and_Bamboo.docx | DOCX document | |
| Wage_Determination.pdf | ||
| Past_Experience_Reference_Form.doc | DOC document | |
| FAR_52_212_3_Offeror_Representations_and_Certifications_Oct_2018.pdf | ||
| Sample_Daily_Report_Form.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
140F0419Q0113- BEST VALUE RATING PLAN
Date:
Evaluator:
Contractor:
Work Site:
Sections/Factors Weight Strengths/ Weakness
Rating Standard
Rating Score
Weighted Rating Score
Notes/Comments
b. Company Capability Statement
c. Work Plan 20
d. Equipment list 10
e. Relevant Certifications
f. Past Performance
g. Quality Control Plan
Reasona ble/ Unreaso nable
Total Rating
h. Price Proposal
Rating Standards
(Superior): Information provided shows high level understanding of the PWS. Information greatly demonstrates the offerors high probability of successfully exceeding all the requirements as stated in the PWS. Information provided contained no discrepancies and/or no area of concern. Offeror provided all relevant information for this section. Information was complete and accurate. Information provided, showed a high level of expertise and experience level(s) that will be advantageous with completing the project as described within the SOW. (5 points)
(Good): Contractor provided information as required. Information provided showed above average probability of successfully satisfying the requirements. Factor contained relatively few, minor discrepancies that will not affect the overall quality of the project. (4 points)
(Average): Meets the basic minimal requirements for this factor with one or more major discrepancies that will need to be addressed. Offeror information reflects a medium to low probability of success completing the work as described with PWS. (3 points)
(Marginal): Slightly below average /has low probability of satisfying all requirements/significant deficiencies and weaknesses that may impact a successful performance. (2 points)
(Poor): Fails to meet minimum requirements /deficiency requires a major revision to the proposal to make it correct. (1 points)
Price Factors
Price based on price reasonableness, competitiveness, budget. Price reasonable will consider if the price you are quoting reasonable in comparison with your submitted proposal package. Price competitiveness will consider if your price is competitive with others that have quoted and current market rates (if available). Price budget will consider if your price is within the budget based on government estimate and what has been allocated for this requirement. Price factors rated on overly priced, underpriced, competitively priced
Price is unreasonable – In comparison price reasonableness based on detail of proposal, competitiveness of other quotes, and budget
Price is reasonable- competitiveness, budget
Price reasonable will consider if the price you are quoting reasonable in comparison with your submitted proposal package. Price competitiveness will consider if your price is competitive with others that have quoted and current market rates (if available).
File details come from the government source that posted it.