Evaluation_Sheet.docx
DOCX document 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- USFWS Okefenokee NWR Debris Removal-Water Trails
- Solicitation number
- 140F0419R0023
About this file
Evaluation Sheet
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Notice_to_Contractors_-_CPARS_(December_2015).pdf | ||
| Evaluation_Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sol_140F0419R0023_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| PWS_Change_1_Debris_Removal.pdf | ||
| PWS_Debris_Removal.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sol_140F0419R0023.pdf | ||
| Past_Performance_Form.doc | DOC document | |
| FAR_52_212_3_Offeror_Representations_and_Certifications_Oct_2018.pdf | ||
| WDOL.pdf | ||
| Past_Performance_Form.doc | DOC document | |
| PWS_Debris_Removal.docx | DOCX document | |
| Sol_140F0419R0023.pdf | ||
| FAR_52_212_3_Offeror_Representations_and_Certifications_Oct_2018.pdf | ||
| WDOL.pdf | ||
| Notice_to_Contractors_-_CPARS_(December_2015).pdf |
Show all 15
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
RFQ/BEST VALUE RATING PLAN –Debris Removal from Water Trails Date:
Evaluator:
Contractor:
| Sections |
| Weight |
| Strengths/ |
Weakness
| Rating Standard |
| Rating |
(PTS)
Notes/Comments
| b. Company Capability Statement |
| 5 |
| c. Work Plan |
| 30 |
| d. Equipment List |
| 15 |
| e. Past Performance |
| 35 |
| f. Quality Control Plan |
| 15 |
Reasonable/ Unreasonable Rating total
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.