4. Evaluation Factors.pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Contents Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Section 2: Evaluation Factors

1.1 Factor 1 Relevant Prior Project Experience

1.1.1 Subfactor 1 Relevant Prior Project Experience

1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

1.2.1 Past Performance

1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price

1.3.1 Contract Cost/Price

Section 3: Definitions

2.1 Go/No Go Ratings

2.2 Adjectival Ratings

2.3 Technical Confidence Rating

2.4 Past Performance Confidence

2.5 Performance Confidence Assessment

2.6 Quote/Proposal Metrics

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Award will be made to the Respondent whose offeror represents the best value to the Government. Factors to be considered in determining the best value include price, Contractor experience with this type of work, past performance, and Delivery.

Ratings based on technical aspects of a quote/proposal will utilize the Adjectival Rating (shown below).

Technical Approach Offerors shall submit a narrative that addresses each of the following:

• Describe the proposed management structure for the organization, and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the organization.

• Describe the overall management approach including:

o Lines and methods of communication and decision-making o The role of key subcontractors and specialty contractors o How schedule and cost will be managed.

• Describe the quality assurance/quality control plan

• Describe the proposed approach for completing the requirement within the established period of performance.

• Describe the offeror’s past experience working in a similar setting. Describe other similar projects where you have successfully overcome challenges based on setting or scope.

Section 2: Evaluation Factors The award decision is based on evaluation factors and significant subfactors that are tailored to the acquisition.

Cost/Price is of equal importance compared to the technical criteria which includes the experience with this type of work, past performance and delivery. However, the importance of price may become greater as the difference between price and the technical criteria decreases. Where the technical evaluation criteria are substantially equal, price may control award. All technical criteria are essentially equal in importance to each other.

1.1 Factor 1 Relevant Prior Project Experience

1.1.1 Subfactor 1 Relevant Prior Project Experience

Submission Requirements:

1. Offerors shall submit relevant construction project experience information with references of their firm and any proposed major subcontractors. “Relevant” is defined as similar in size, scope, nature, magnitude and/or complexity.

2. List and provide information for AT MINIMUM THREE (3) major contracts and subcontracts completed within the last three years. Limit to FIVE (5) contracts/projects.

3. Contracts submitted may include those with the Federal Government, state and local government agencies, and commercial customers.

4. For each contract or subcontract submitted, include the following information:

a. Name of customer or contracting activity

b. Contract number

c. Contract type

d. Total contract value

e. Completion date, or anticipated completion date if in progress

f. Scope, magnitude, complexity of the work

g. Contracting Officer (or Customer Representative if commercial)

h. Contracting Officer's Representative [COR] or Project Manager

i. List of major subcontractors. NOTE: Provide name, address, telephone, and email address for items g. and h.

Performance information may be obtained from the references provided.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

The adjectival rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.

1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

1.2.1 Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s Past Performance. The Government will primarily evaluate the offeror’s Past Performance for each of the projects/contracts submitted under Factor 1 – Relevant Construction Project Experience. The Government will primarily utilize two methods of evaluating an offeror’s past performance. A. Federal Government performance evaluations currently in the Government’s past performance databases e.g., Past Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System [CPARS] / Performance Information Retrieval System [PPIRS]. B. Past Performance Questionnaires – completed and submitted.

1. For each project/contract submitted under Factor 1 – Relevant Construction Project Experience, the offeror shall submit completed Government past performance database (CPARS/PPIRS) evaluations. To improve accuracy of database searches, the offeror should also provide the CAGE Codes for the prime contractor.

2. For each of the project submitted under Factor 1 for which a Government performance evaluation has not been completed in the CPARS system, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire [PPQ] completed by an appropriate customer representative that can provide an evaluation/opinion of the offeror’s past performance for the project.

Offerors are encouraged to follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. The offeror is responsible for ensuring that the completed questionnaires are submitted by the closing date. There is no page limit for this factor. The Government will evaluate the past performance information provided with the proposal. The Government may contact and reserves the right to interview the project/contract representative on CPARS evaluations and/or evaluators/submitting POCs for PPQs. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System(PPIRS), Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System(CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System(FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and other Government officials.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror. At no time during this process, nor during the debriefing, nor after award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance be revealed to the offerors or to any other party. Adverse past performance information may be extracted and provided to the offeror, but records or the source of the information will not be furnished to the offeror and will remain confidential.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Ratings will be based on: Relevancy, Recency (to be defined in each solicitation, not using FAR terms and definitions), Quality defined in: FAR 42.1503.

Insert Evaluation Criteria/Methodology here.

1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price

1.3.1 Contract Cost/Price

Submission Requirements:

Price Proposal Consisting of submission of the following:

• Standard Form [SF] 1442 – Solicitation, Offer, and Award. Complete all applicable field. Sign and date Blocks 30 a-c.

• Section B Schedule of Supplies and Service, B.1 Bid Schedule – Provide pricing information for all bid items – Base and Alternative. No breakdown of unit price is required

• Bid Guarantee – required for all proposals with amount exceeding $150,000.00.

• Acknowledgement (signed) all solicitation amendments.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Insert Evaluation Criteria/Methodology here.

Qoute/Proposal Metrics listed below.

Section 3: Definitions

2.1 Go/No Go Ratings

The term “Pass/Fail” will not be utilized in any rating; instead “Go/No Go” will be utilized. When Go/No Go ratings are utilized the following sentence shall appear in the request “Specifically, for a vendor to be considered for an award, the proposed solution must meet the minimum technical criteria listed.”

2.2 Adjectival Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition Exceptional Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies and fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an excellent approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many strengths exist, far outweighing any weaknesses. The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated with very low risk.

Very Good Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies; fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates a very effective approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Some weaknesses may exist; however, the weaknesses, if any, are outweighed by strengths. A high quality of contract performance is anticipated with low risk.

Satisfactory Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies; addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. A quality contract performance is anticipated with an acceptable amount of risk.

Marginal Quote/Offer may contain deficiencies; fails to address all of the criteria and does not demonstrate an adequate approach/solution or understanding of the requirements. One or more weaknesses exist which are not offset by strengths.

Contract performance is anticipated with high risk.

Unsatisfactory Quote/Offer contains many deficiencies and does not address all aspects of the criteria and/or does not present evidence demonstrating an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many weaknesses and/or omissions exist creating an unacceptable risk.

2.3 Technical Confidence Rating

Confidence Rating Definition

High Confidence (Low Risk)

The Government has high confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence (Moderate Risk)

The Government has some confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence (High Risk)

The Government has low confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

2.4 Past Performance Confidence

Rating Description

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.5 Performance Confidence Assessment

2.6 Quote/Proposal Metrics

When identifying the merits of a quote/proposal the following three terms shall be utilized along with the definitions.

Narrative Element Definition Strength A significant, outstanding, or exceptionally positive aspect of a Quote/Offer.

Weakness Any aspect of a Quote/Offer increasing the potential for problems and issues with regard to contract performance. The Quote/Offer provides a minimally acceptable response to the Government’s requirements. The response leaves the evaluator with uncertainty as to the understanding of the work, capability to successfully perform the work, or capability to effectively manage the work effort.

Deficiency A material failure of a Quote/Offer to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a Quote/Offer increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Somewhat Relevant

Past/present performance effort involved some of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation required.

Rating Description

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.