5. Evaluation Criteria Cherokee NF Spruce Exams.pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Cherokee NF - FY24 Red Spruce Stand Exams

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Contents Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Section 2: Evaluation Factors

Factor 1. Past Performance Factor 2. Ability to accurately identify Southern Appalachian hardwood and softwood tree species in the growing and dormant seasons Factor 3. Ability to understand and implement the US Forest Service Common Stand Exam (CSE) protocols and software

Section 3: Definitions

1.1 Technical Confidence Rating

1.2 Past Performance Confidence Rating

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology The award decision is based on cost/price as well as a rating of evaluation factors that are tailored to the acquisition. Evaluation factors are significantly more important than cost or price.

Evaluation factors will be ranked according to the referenced scale. Each factor is equally important. Please note that each evaluation factor has a minimum rating that must be met.

Section 2: Evaluation Factors Specifically, for a vendor to be considered for an award, the proposed solution must meet the technical criteria listed. Technical criteria, are equally important and must meet the minimum rating.

Factor 1. Past Performance.

Submission Requirements:

Submit a list of similar project work that was completed by your firm or any of your proposed subcontractors in the last three years. Emphasis in place on past work specifically related to the work elements in the solicitation. Provide:

• Names and telephone numbers of principal officials in charge of the project that are familiar with your performance.

• A brief description of the work performed.

• The agency/company or individuals you worked for

• The size (value) and location of the contracts.

• The contract number.

• Any information on problems encountered.

Individuals or businesses without prior contracts as a business entity, should list contracts and subcontracts completed under other names or by their employees.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Must receive a Past Performance Confidence Rating of Somewhat Relevant or Relevant. See Past Performance Confidence ratings in section 3 below.

Factor 2. Ability to accurately identify Southern Appalachian hardwood and softwood tree species in the growing and dormant seasons.

Submission Requirements:

For those who will be conducting data collection in the field (e.g. you, your employees, or your subcontractor), submit a statement about their ability and/or experience with Southern Appalachian hardwood and softwood tree species identification in the growing and dormant seasons. Also list any contracts from Factor 1 that required identification of Southern Appalachian hardwood and softwood species.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Must receive a Technical Confidence Rating of High Confidence (Low Risk). See Technical Confidence Rating in section 3 below.

Factor 3. Ability to understand and implement the US Forest Service Common Stand Exam (CSE) protocols and software.

Submission Requirements:

For those who will be conducting data collection in the field (e.g. you, your employees, or your subcontractor), submit a statement about their ability and/or experience using US Forest Service Common Stand Exam protocols and associated software. Also list any contracts from Factor 1 that required use of CSE protocols and software.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Must receive a Technical Confidence Rating High Confidence (Low Risk). See Technical Confidence Rating in section 3 below.

Section 3: Definitions

1.1 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.

1.2 Past Performance Confidence Rating

Rating Description

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

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.