A00002_47QMCH23R0001_Attachment 1_2023-02-02.pdf

Rating Description

3 - High

To receive a 3 rating, an offeror must demonstrate in its technical capability volume:

1. Process Map and narratives describe the offeror’s approach to transporting UC from receipt of notification through successful reunification with sponsor. The process must describe the offeror’s solution in sufficient detail to leave no doubt in the evaluators judgment of its ability to perform at the stated level, and an evaluator must have no additional questions or need for additional information in addition to what is provided in the technical capability volume to rate the volume at a 3 level.

2. A staffing plan that describes the offeror’s ability and method to provide an adequate number of appropriately trained staff to provide coverage 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The plan must describe the offeror’s solution in sufficient detail to leave no doubt in the evaluators judgment of its ability to perform at the stated level, and an evaluator must have no additional questions or need for additional information in addition to what is provided in the technical capability volume to rate the volume at a 3 level.

3. A demonstrated capability of conducting a large-scale transfer. This capability must be described in adequate detail to leave no doubt in the evaluator's judgment of its ability to accomplish a large-scale transfer at the stated level, and an evaluator must have no additional questions or need for additional information in addition to what is provided in the technical capability volume to rate the volume at a 3 level. In addition, the offeror must provide a matrix to describe its process for decision making with respect to travel method. To be rated at a 3 level, the decision matrix must describe how the offeror will meet the defined travel timeframes in the work statement and will be cost effective in sufficient detail as to require no additional information from the offeror.

4. The offeror’s system for maintaining positive accountability for UC must provide real time tracking of each UC and provide all information described by the work statement for each UC. In order to be rated a 3, the offeror must describe its real time tracking and required data elements in sufficient detail to require no additional information in addition to the provided proposal.

5. Contractor provided vehicles are the appropriate size, are readily available for use, and are maintained to a level at or above the manufacturer’s recommendations. To receive a 3 rating, the offeror will describe its supplied vehicle information in sufficient detail to address all evaluator questions and to require no additional information in addition to what is provided in the technical capability volume.

2 - Mid To receive a 2 rating, an offeror must demonstrate in its technical capability volume:

1. Process Map and narratives describe the offeror’s approach to transporting UC from receipt of notification through successful reunification with sponsor. The process must describe the offeror’s solution in detail, but fails to do so at a level that leaves no doubt in the evaluators judgment of its ability to perform at the stated level, and an evaluator must request additional information from an offeror in addition to what is provided in the technical capability volume to rate the volume at a 2 level.

2. A staffing plan that describes the offeror’s ability and method to provide an adequate number of appropriately trained staff to provide coverage 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The plan must describe the offeror’s solution in detail, but fails to do so at a level that leaves no doubt in the evaluators judgment of its ability to perform at the stated level, and an evaluator must request additional information from an offeror in addition to what is provided in the technical capability volume to rate the volume at a 2 level.

3. A demonstrated capability of conducting a large-scale transfer. This capability must be described in detail, but the technical capability volumes fails to explain this capability sufficiently so that an evaluator must request additional information from an offeror in addition to what is provided in the technical capability volume. In addition, the offeror must provide a matrix to describe its process for decision making with respect to travel method.

To be rated at a 2 level, this matrix must describe how the offeror will meet the defined travel timeframes in the work statement and will be cost effective, but not in sufficient detail so that additional information must be requested from an offeror.

4. The offeror’s system for maintaining positive accountability for UC must provide real time tracking of each UC and provide all information described by the work statement for each UC. In order to be rated a 2, the offeror must describe its real time tracking and required data elements in detail, but not in sufficient detail so that additional information must be requested from the offeror.

5. Contractor provided vehicles are the appropriate size, are readily available for use, and are maintained to a level at or above the manufacturer’s recommendations. To receive a 2 rating, the offeror will describe its supplied vehicle information in detail, but not in sufficient detail to address all evaluator questions without the need to request additional information from the offeror.

1 - Low To receive a 1 rating, an offeror must demonstrate in its technical capability volume:

1. Process Map and narratives that fail to describe the offeror’s ability and method of their proposed transportation of UC and reunification with their sponsor. The number of evaluated weaknesses and deficiencies in the process are so great that only an extensive proposal revision is likely to address the identified issues.

2. A staffing plan that fails to describe the offeror’s ability and method to provide an adequate number of appropriately trained staff to provide coverage 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The number of evaluated weaknesses and deficiencies in the plan are so great that only an extensive proposal revision is likely to address the identified issues.

3. A demonstrated capability of conducting a large-scale transfer. This capability is not described in detail or at all, but the technical capability volume fails to demonstrate that the offeror understands the contract requirements, and only through an extensive proposal revision can these evaluated weaknesses and deficiencies be addressed. In addition, the offeror must provide a matrix to describe its process for decision making with respect to travel method. To be rated at a 1 level, this matrix must fail to describe how the offeror will meet the defined travel timeframes in the work statement and will be cost effective to such an extent that only an extensive proposal revision are likely to address the evaluated weaknesses and deficiencies.

4. The offeror’s system for maintaining positive accountability for UC must provide real time tracking of each UC and provide all information described by the work statement for each UC. In order to be rated a 1, the offeror must fail to describe its real time tracking and required data elements in detail, and the evaluated weaknesses and deficiencies can only be addressed through extensive proposal revision.

5. Contractor provided vehicles are the appropriate size, are readily available for use, and are maintained to a level at or above the manufacturer’s recommendations. To receive a 1 rating, the offeror will fail to describe its supplied vehicle information in detail, and the evaluated weaknesses and deficiencies are so great that only an extensive proposal revision is likely to address them.