Evaluation_Factors_and_Criteria.pdf

pg. 1

Sol # 693JF717R00017693JF717R00017

Electronics and Sound System Upgrade

Evaluation Factors & Criteria’s

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 package. Two (2) Evaluation Factors will be used to assess proposals/quotes for the Audio Upgrade Brooks Stadium Press Box and Score Board project

Factor 1 - Technical Capability

Offerors are encouraged to provide a project plan that will provide the Government with a high level of confidence that the offeror has a thorough understanding of this requirement and the available resources to successfully perform. The offeror's project plan shall demonstrate how they intend to meet the requirements of the SOW including deliverables as evidenced by a realistic separation of the project into viable components and/or milestones.

The Offeror provides a proposal which includes a project plan and a work breakdown staffing plan that thoroughly demonstrates to the Government that the Offeror (1) has a thorough understanding of the SOW; (2) proposes a realistic and viable approach/plan of action; (3) has the available resources to perform; (4) identifies any potential problems and/or critical issues that will relate to the successful completion of the project; and (5) identifies measurable and structured performance objectives and standards that represents the greatest value to the

Government.

The proposal MUST include and will be evaluated on the following sub-factors:

Sub-Factor A - Experience

Experience with construction projects of similar nature and scope. This will be based on resumes of key personnel who has successfully performed at least three (3) construction projects of similar nature and scope within the last three (3) years.

Sub-Factor B - Past performance

Provide three (3) references of the same or similar nature and scope performed within the last three (3) years.

Sub-Factor C – Schedule

Performance work schedule must be submitted.

pg. 2

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.

Factor 2 – 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.

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 and price factors, the

Government may make an award to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation deemed the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA).