Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Evaluation Criteria

Technical, Past Performance and Price are in descending order of importance. The importance of price in the evaluation will increase with the degree of equality among quotations of the non-price factors.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “ACCEPTABLE” must be achieved for the technical acceptability evaluation factor. For Past Performance, the offeror must receive a rating of no less than ‘SATISFACTORY confidence’ to be considered for award. However, offerors which receive an unknown (neutral) past performance rating will be considered for award.

FACTOR 1 - Technical Acceptability: The Government will evaluate the technical submission to ensure it is acceptable. Each submission will be rated utilizing the acceptability ratings defined below.

Technical Standard 1: Capability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide qualified personnel that comply with the technical requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW). To be deemed technically acceptable, the Offeror must provide details of the organizational structure and recruiting tools necessary to successfully execute the requirements in the SOW based on qualifications, education levels, knowledge and expertise.

Technical Standard 2: Management Approach. To be deemed technically acceptable, the Offeror’s Management Approach must meet ALL of the following:

o An acceptable approach for recruiting, managing and controlling personnel performing the contract requirements;

o An effective means for internal and external communications that demonstrates efficiencies and encourages clear communication across company lines with well-defined lines of authority; and o The ability to provide effective management support with reach-back capability to support retention of personnel while performing throughout the life of the order.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH

Adequacy of Response. The Quote will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFQ. The Quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the Quote in accordance with the Quote submission section of the solicitation.

The ratings focus on strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s non-price technical factors as demonstrated by its written Quote. Assigned ratings will reflect the consensus developed by the evaluation panel’s assessment of the proposed approach to accomplish the objectives. Offeror’s responses to the factors will be rated by using a combination of color codes / adjectival ratings. The following color code / adjectival rating system will be used to determine the overall technical rating of each Quote. Each technical sub-factor will be rated using the following criteria:

Technical Evaluation Rating Summary

Color Code Blue Green Yellow Orange Red

Adjectival Rating

Excellent

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

BLUE/EXCELLENT – The Quote is very comprehensive, in-depth, clear and uniformly outstanding in quality. Consistently high quality performance can be expected. The Quote, as written, exceeds RFQ requirements and demonstrates an exceptional understanding of goals and objectives of the acquisition. One or more major strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist.

GREEN/GOOD – The Quote demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. It has one or more strengths.

YELLOW/ACCEPTABLE – The Quote meets all minimum requirements and generally is of high quality. Quote demonstrates an acceptable understanding of goals and objectives of the acquisition. There may be both strengths and weaknesses, but the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. Deficiencies are minor and easily corrected. Quote is acceptable as written. Satisfactory performance can be expected.

ORANGE/MARGINAL – The Quote fails to meet minimum requirements. Quote demonstrates a fair understanding of the goals and objectives of the acquisition.

Weaknesses outbalance any strength that exists. Weaknesses will be difficult to correct and would require negotiations. Does Not Meet RFQ Requirements in One or Two Areas.

RED/UNSATISFACTORY – The Quote fails to meet minimum requirements.

Quote fails to meet an understanding of the goals and objectives of the acquisition.

The Quote has one or more significant weaknesses that will be very difficult or impossible to correct. Major Quote revision(s) are required for minimum acceptability.

Strength – Any aspect of a Quote that, when judged against evaluation factors, enhances the merit of the Quote or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weakness – A flaw in a Quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency – Failure of section of a Quote to meet a Government requirement, or combination of significant weaknesses in a Quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance of the contract.

PART II: PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Offerors are cautioned that in conducting present and past performance evaluations, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal, any other source available to the Government and data obtained from other sources to include, but not limited, to data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

The Government will evaluate Quality of Performance (how well the contractor has performed on contracts). ****THE CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE

DOCUMENT MUST BE COMPLETED AND ATTACHED TO THE QUOTE.

All Contractors shall provide a minimum of two (2) references. References should demonstrate the ability of the Contractor to perform jobs similar in scope to the size, nature and complexity of the outlined Proposal. The references shall include the:

Company name, address, contact person, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address, if available, the number of years Contractor has serviced the referenced account, and the dates this company was serviced;

Scope of Work performed within the past five (years) for each referenced account.

Total yearly value of the contract work performed

The following ratings shall be used for the Performance Confidence Assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

PART III: PRICE

Price will be evaluated separately from the technical and past performance factors and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonability in terms of the Government’s requirement.