Evaluation_Factors_and_Criteria.pdf

pg. 1

Sol # 693JF717R00008

Boiler Inspection, Cleaning & Re-Tubing Services

Evaluation Factors & Criteria’s

Three (3) evaluation Factors and Criteria’s will be used to assess proposals/quotes for the Fulton

Hall Boiler Inspection, Cleaning & Re-Tubing Services.

Factor 1 - Technical Capability/Qualifications

The statement of work (SOW) provides the government's overall objectives and performance requirements for this solicitation. Offerors shall use the SOW as the basis for preparing their proposal. The offeror shall ensure that all aspects of the SOW are addressed. The offeror will provide a technical proposal, describing their proposed plan/approach and qualifications to carry out the work under this solicitation.

The offeror's proposal should demonstrate sufficient information on business characteristics within the project plan and work breakdown necessary to complete the proposed technical development. Also, the s taff , machinery and instrumentation that will be utilized to meet the needs of the development.

In conducting a technical relevancy assessment, an offeror will be assigned one of the ratings below:

Technical Rating Scale

Adjectival

Ratings Definition

Excellent The proposed approach indicates an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive understanding of the program goals, resources, schedules and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. There are no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good The proposed approach indicates a thorough understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths.

Satisfactory The proposed approach indicates an adequate understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules and other aspects essential to the performance of the program.

Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths

Marginal

Mam

The proposed approach indicates a superficial or vague understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program.

Numerous weaknesses and/or some deficiencies exist.

Unsatisfactory

Red

The proposed approach indicates a lack of understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. Significant weaknesses and/or some deficiencies exist.

pg. 2

Factor 2 - Past Performance

Offerors shall submit two (2) current (within the last five (5) years) past performance projects related to this procurement.

The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size and complexity of the procurement under consideration. The Government reserves the right to contact these references as well as use any additional information it obtains.

In conducting a performance relevancy assessment, an offeror will be assigned one of the ratings below:

Past Performance Rating Scale

Assessment

Ratings Definition

Exceptional/High

Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Very

Good/Significant

Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence/Neutral

Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort or no performance record identifiable (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iii) and (iv)).

Marginal/Little

Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror's existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Unsatisfactory/No

Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 3 – Price

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the total price in accordance with FAR Part

15.4. The Government will evaluate the offer for award purposes by adding the total price for all options (if applicable) to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The evaluation will be based on how well the cost proposal is assessed to be realistic, reasonable and complete. Costs proposed must reflect the efforts described in the technical proposal.

Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of any of the separate cost elements and profit or fee in an offeror's proposal as needed to determine a fair and reasonable price or to determine cost realism. Realism determines how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.

pg. 3

Basis for Award

Offerors must satisfy the requirements described in the performance criteria outlined in the

SOW. The Government will not award a contract on the basis of an unacceptable offer.

Based upon the results of the integrated assessment of the technical, past performance and cost/price proposals, the Government may make an award to other than the lowest-priced offeror or the offeror with the highest technical score if the source selection official determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. The Technical Factor and Past

Performance when combined are slightly more important than Price.