Evaluation_Factors_and_Criteria_-_Paving.pdf

pg. 1

Sol # 693JF718R000027 IDIQ for Roof Replacement/Repairs at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy

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 IDIQ for Roof Replacement/Repair projects at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.

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.

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 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 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 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate on the basis of past performance within the past 3 years.

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 Best Technical Qualified Proposal.