New_England_OA_CTS_Informational_Amendment_0002.pdf

Request for Proposal No. 1630J1-17-R-00003 OA/CTS for New England/Amendment 0002

M.4 EVALUATION AND SOURCE SELECTION DECISION PROCESS

Fully Responsive (i.e., meeting all specified requirements contained in the solicitation) and Responsible (See FAR 9.104-1) offers will be rated using the Best-Value Continuum acquisition evaluation process pursuant to FAR 15.101-1. This evaluation process allows for trade-offs among proposed non-cost factors/sub-factors and cost/price, and thus allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award.

Further, the various rating schemas used to subjectively evaluate proposals using FAR-accepted trade-off processes and procedures are described hereunder.

A. Technical Approach and Staffing Resources Evaluation Criteria

Pursuant to solicitation Section M.1.2, Evaluation Factors, the following Proposal Evaluation (adjectival and risk) Ratings apply to both Technical Approach and Staff Resources factors and sub-factors. These ratings are similar to those found in FAR 42.15, Contractor Performance Information. Included in this set of evaluations will be determinations as to whether there are Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and/or Deficiencies, and to what extent identified risks (High, Moderate, or Low) would impact the final overall ratings for each factor/sub-factor.

Adjectival Evaluation Rating

Outstanding

Very Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Risk Rating

Low

Moderate

High

The Adjectival Evaluation Ratings used for this effort are the same as those found in FAR 42.15, Table 42-1—Evaluation Rating Definitions, and as used in CPARS Assessment Reports.

B. Relevant Experience Evaluation Criteria

Pursuant to solicitation Section M.(3), Evaluation Factors, the following Proposal Evaluation (adjectival) Rating Definitions apply to Relevant Experience factors and sub-factors. Included in this set of evaluations will be determinations as to whether past/current experiences were Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant with regard to complexity of work, magnitude of the projects, and similarity(ies) to scope of performance requirements.

Adjectival Evaluation Rating Description/Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance efforts involve(d) essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexities as required under this solicitation.

Relevant Present/past performance efforts involve(d) similar scope, magnitude, and complexities as required under this solicitation.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance efforts involve(d) some of the scope, magnitude, and complexities as required under this solicitation.

Not Relevant Present/past performance efforts involve(d) very little or none of the scope, magnitude, and complexities as required under this solicitation.

C. Past Performance Confidence Assessment

Pursuant to solicitation Section M.(4), Evaluation Factors, the following Proposal Evaluation (adjectival) Rating Definitions apply to Past Performance factors and sub-factors. Included in this set of evaluations will be determinations as to whether past performance records (e.g., PPIRS), relative data, and pertinent information provide sufficient confidence in the quality performance of an Offeror’s (and applicable subcontractor’s) prior and current project efforts. This confidence assessment will determine if the Government has: Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, No, or Indeterminate (Neutral) Assessed Confidence with regard to results of a Contractor’s/Subcontractor’s quality level of performance.

Past Performance Adjectival Description/Definition Evaluation Rating

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance records, data, and information, the Government has high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform under the requirements of any resultant contract.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant

Government has reasonable expectation that the

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant

Government has low expectation that the

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform under the requirements of any resultant contract.

Indeterminate (Neutral) No recent and relevant performance record, data, or information is available, or the Offeror’s performance history is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can reasonable be assigned.