Attachment_03_-_Evaluation_Criteria_(Revised).pdf

70FBR419R00000008 Evaluation Criteria Attachment 03

Award will be made to the responsive, responsible contractor who provides the best-valued solution to the Government. Each proposal will be evaluated according to the following price and non-price factors.

Technical Approach: The contractor’s proposal shall be evaluated on its demonstrated technical approach and understanding of the requirements set forth in the subject Statement of Work. Particularly relevant for this requirement is the contractor’s travel trailer production and delivery capability, considering the types of trailers being required as outlined in the Attachment 04 - Statement of Work. Next, the contractor shall provide their current inventory of the required trailer types. Finally, the contractor shall address their maximum daily delivery potential under short notice (24-hour notice).

Local Area Set-aside: The contractor’s proposal will be evaluated on its demonstrated ability to satisfy all locality requirements as set forth in provision FAR 52.226-3. A responsive proposal shall contain an affirmative representation and all supporting documentation that it resides or primarily does business in the designed set aside area. The subject evaluation factor will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Proposals that receive a fail rating will not receive further consideration for award.

Past Performance: The contractor’s proposal shall be evaluated on its demonstrated on performance record providing items to similar to those outlined in the Statement of Work. Emphasis is placed on demonstrated experience with projects similar in magnitude and complexity for this requirement completed within the last three years.

Contracts listed may include those entered into by the Federal Government, agencies of State and local governments, and commercial customers. Contracts with the parent or an affiliate of the offeror may not be used. The following information shall be provided for each referenced contract

a. Program title or product name

b. Contract number

c. Contract type

d. Brief synopsis of work performed

e. Brief discussion of how the work performed is relevant to this solicitation

f. Contract Value

g. Contact Information

The Government will consider the above information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror's record of successful performance of recent and relevant work for government and private sector clients. In addition to questionnaires the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) website will be used to conduct past performance reviews.

Price: The contractor’s proposed pricing shall be evaluated for reasonableness.

Description Quantity Unit of Issue Unit Price Total Price Travel Trailers 670 Each $ $

The total prices are for evaluation purposes only, and does not guarantee that all units will be ordered.

The subsequent pages include tables that will be used when rating Technical and Past Performance factors.

Technical evaluation factors will be evaluated using the following criteria.

Rating DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Excellent in all respects; offers one or more significant advantages not offset by disadvantages; significantly exceeded performance or capability standards; performance areas assessed had very few minor issues or concerns; very good probability of success with overall very low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Very Good High quality in most respects; offers one or more advantages not offset by disadvantages; exceeded some performance or capability standards; the performance areas assessed had few minor issues or concerns; good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Satisfactory Adequate quality; demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards; performance areas assessed contain minor issues or concerns; moderate degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Marginal Overall quality cannot be determined due to errors, omissions or deficiencies; only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal performance; high degree of risk in successfully meeting the Government’s requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal contains major errors, omissions or deficiencies; fails to meet performance or capability standards; an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Definitions

Strength: A feature of the proposal that decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant strength” in the proposal is a feature that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: Is a material failure of a proposal to meet Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risks:

- High: Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

- Moderate: Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

- Low: Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Past Performance factors will be evaluated using the following criteria.

Rating Symbol Definition

Outstanding O

Based on the Offeror’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experiences indicate that the Offeror is capable of significantly exceeding the requirements of the RFP.

Good G

The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror is capable of exceeding the requirements of the RFP.

Acceptable A

The Offer’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror is capable of meeting the requirements of the RFP.

Unsatisfactory U The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates it is likely to have problems meeting the requirements of the RFP.

Neutral N

No past performance/experience available for evaluation. Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or relevant past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.