36C10E19R0009-008.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The proposals will be evaluated under three evaluation factors: Factor 1 (Project Approach), Factor 2 (Past

Performance), and Factor 3 (Price).

Factor 1: Project Approach

Standard 1 – Technical Approach

Standard 2 – Management and Staffing Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

Evaluation Factor #1 – Project Approach:

Standard #1 – Technical Approach. The Technical Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses and deficiencies of the

Offeror's proposal. Assessment criteria includes: adequacy of approach; feasibility of approach;

completeness; and understanding of the requirement.

Each offeror shall submit a technical approach narrative which demonstrates how the offeror intends to accomplish the requirements as stated in the SOW. If the Government determines an item to be unsuitable for any reason; the technical approach will receive an “Unacceptable Rating”.

The offeror will provide a schedule for accomplishing the tasks which proposes no greater than the maximum allowed disruption to the facilities heating and air conditioning during working hours, description and schedule for the initial start-up training plan and support materials, the steps taken to ensure all phases comply with all applicable laws and regulations, and quality control measures taken to accomplish the requirements as stated in the SOW.

Standard #2 – Management and Staffing Approach. The Management and Staffing Approach evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. Overall, the assessment criteria includes:

adequacy of approach; feasibility of approach; completeness; and understanding of the requirement.

Offeror shall state how they will phase the project, what the communication plan will be and who the primary point of contact will be throughout the project.

Each offeror shall submit a Management and staffing approach which demonstrates how the offeror intends to manage, schedule, and integrate teaming partners/subcontractors into their organization.

Describe the working relationship between the prime and its teaming partners/subcontractors;

additionally, the offeror shall describe how it will ensure adequate oversight and quality control of teaming partners/subcontractors, where applicable, to include performance monitoring and timely resolution of any issues that may arise. Each offeror shall describe their staffing approach so as to demonstrate their ability to accomplish the requirements as stated in the SOW.

Project Approach rating Scheme - The technical approach standard and management and staffing approach standard will each receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. These ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the project approach factor. A rating of unacceptable for either standard will equate to an unacceptable rating for the project approach factor and the proposal will not be further evaluated.

Adjectival Rating Standards

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Evaluation Factor #2 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State

Department Watch Lists. The areas of Past Performance in PPIRS to be reviewed in the evaluation process include:

• Business Relations

• Quality of Service

• Schedule

• Customer Satisfaction

Past Performance Confidence Rating Overview. The Government will determine a past performance confidence rating of the Offeror’s past performance. The past performance confidence rating represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The past performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and as defined as relevant in the above Proposal Content section C(2)(b). The past performance data shall be evaluated based on the demonstration of a successful history of past contract performance based on an assessment of the past performance information. To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.” If a rating of unacceptable for the past performance factor is assessed, the entire proposal will be determined unacceptable, and will not be further evaluated.

Past Performance Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable The Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

Evaluation Factor #3– Price. Price will not be scored or rated. The techniques and procedures described under FAR Part 15.404-1 will be the primary means of assessing price to determine the proposed price to be reasonable and complete. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether an

Acceptable Offeror’s overall price is reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404.

Definitions:

Completeness/Accuracy: The Offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the RFP.

Reasonableness: A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either part. Before the Offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.