Evaluation Factor rev.docx

EVALUATION CRITERIA

BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) contract for Budget Analyst Support Services in accordance with the statement of work (SOW). This process will be used in this procurement for the evaluation of offers to make sure that each offeror fully understands the statement of work (SOW). All evaluation factors when combined are significantly in price. The Government will award a contract resulting from this Solicitation No. 47PM0924R0006 to the responsible Offeror whose offer, meet all the criteria of the technical factors, the lowest price wins.

The Government will review proposal through a process of evaluation of the pass and fail of each offeror’s proposal in accordance with evaluation criteria.

Evaluation Factors

The following evaluation criteria:

I. Technical (Experience and Qualifications) II. Past Performance III. Price

I. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

This factor will consider whether the potential vendor have appropriate experience and qualifications in performing the work proposed in referenced in the Statement of Work. At a minimum, the Government considers five (5) years of experience.

II. PAST PERFORMANCE

Contractor shall provide Past Performance References for projects identified under Evaluation Factor I. Experience and Qualifications.

The past performance evaluation will examine the offeror’s actual performance on a minimum of three (3) similar projects. This review will focus on the size, scope, and complexity of the efforts, the performance measures/service levels applied, the actual performance results against those measures, and customer satisfaction achieved by the offeror.

In conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data obtained from other sources as well as that provided in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to check the past performance of any proposed subcontractors and team members and include the results in its assessment.

Standard is met when the offeror submits the references for a minimum of three (3) projects that meet all of the above-mentioned criteria as identified in II. Past Performance. The offeror shall receive at least satisfactory ratings on all projects submitted in order to be acceptable.

Past Performance Statements shall include the following information:

1. Project title and Description of the project

2. Contract/Task order number and order amount

3. Government/Agency/Organization

4. Contracting Officer/Contracting Office Representative’s name, address, telephone number and email address, if applicable

5. Current status (e.g. completed and/or in progress, start and estimated completion dates)

STANDARD FOR EVALUATION: TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS)

The following categorical descriptions shall be used to derive an adjectival evaluation of the offeror’s technical proposal is Pass or Fail:

A. Pass: The technical proposal demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of all of the requirements. no significant weaknesses, no deficiencies, and several minor weaknesses. The offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in the achievement of the Government’s objectives with low risk.

B. Fail: The technical proposal demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the technical requirement. The offeror failed to meet minimum requirements specified in the SOW. An unacceptable proposal fails to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling the Government’s requirements. An unacceptable proposal is one in which an unacceptable risk of performance failure exists.

The following categorical descriptions shall be used to derive an evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance of Pass or Fail:

A. Past: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government can expect successful performance and customer satisfaction with low risk.

B. Fail: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction. The offeror’s performance record suggests an unacceptable degree of risk.

III. PRICE

The Government considers price an important factor in selecting the successful contractor. The contractor’s proposed pricing will be evaluated against the Government’s estimated level of effort. Unrealistically high or low pricing will be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk associated with the work to be performed.

The Government expects to receive price competition through the receipt of multiple quotes. Contractors shall propose fixed hourly rates that are in accordance with its GSA schedule pricing; however, discounts are strongly encouraged. The contractor’s total price in RFQ Attachments, will automatically be computed.

The Government will evaluate price quotes for award purposes by calculating the sum of the base and all option periods to determine a total proposed price. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

STANDARD FOR EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate Cost/Price to ensure it is complete, reasonable and realistic by verifying that all prices/labor rates and cost to the Government are in accordance with the offeror’s GSA contract. Discounts offered by each offeror to its rates will be evaluated. Each offeror’s level of effort and mix of labor proposed will be evaluated to determine that the total price proposed is fair and reasonable.

The Government intends to award a contract on lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) proposal for Budget Analyst Support Services.