Attachment_4_Technical_Evaluation_Criteria_Communication_Lines_TRO_Work_(Autosaved).pdf

Attachment 4

Evaluation Criteria

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s proposals for the

TRO Communication Lines and Fiber Work contract. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria set forth below. The Government intends to make a single award under this solicitation to the contractors whose proposal represent the

Best Value to the Government. The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Technical, Past Performance, and Price/Cost in accordance with Tables 01- 03.

A rating of Unacceptable in any of the Non-Priced factors 1 through 2 will render the entire proposal technically unacceptable and, therefore, not eligible for award. The non-price factors are listed below in descending order of importance.

The Government will conduct a detailed evaluation of the offerors approach and capability to meet the

Government’s objectives against the following evaluation factors: (1) Price, (2) Technical Approach,

(3) Past Performance.

RATINGS and DEFINITION: The offerors technical proposals will be rated using the following Adjectival ratings: (1) Outstanding, (2) Very Good, (3) Acceptable, and (4) Unacceptable.

Table 01

Adjectival Technical and Management Approach

Outstanding The proposal contains no weaknesses or deficiencies. The approach offers a strong understanding and significant strengths beneficial in meeting the Government’s requirement. Exceeds performance capability standards; expected to contribute to the superior achievement of the objectives with no risk.

Very Good The proposal contains no deficiencies and a few, no more than two (2) weaknesses. The approach offers a clear understanding and strengths in meeting the Government’s requirement. The approach is expected to introduce minimal risk in achieving the objectives.

Acceptable The proposal contains no deficiencies and some weaknesses. The approach marginally meets the performance or capability standards necessary for minimal performance; moderate degree of risk in successfully meeting the Government’s requirements.

Unacceptable

The Evaluation Factor response is expected to introduce excessive risk making it highly unlikely that performance would meet the objectives.

Table 2

Adjectival Past Performance

Outstanding

The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that DHS can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with very low risk. One or more examples where past performance significantly exceeded requirements.

Acceptable The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the DHS may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Vendor’s past performance record reflects minimal prior relevant experience and suggests some risk.

Unacceptable

The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Vendor’s performance record, as applicable, suggests a high degree of risk.

Neutral

A “Neutral” rating indicates a Vendor without a record of past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available.

Table 3

Definitions For evaluation purposes the following definitions apply

Significant Strength

An element of the proposal which exceeding an exceptional understanding of the requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government

Strength An element of the proposal which demonstrates understanding of the requirement of the solicitation.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency A material failure of the proposal to meet a requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the likelihood of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level

Factor 1– Price/Cost

No page limit. The offeror shall propose a firm-fixed price schedule for supplies and services, as outlined in the Statement of Objectives and Solicitation.

To determine price reasonableness, the government will review price to ensure that offerors have a clear understanding of the work and skills required for project or contract performance. Price

Quotations determined to be unrealistic in terms of technical commitment or unrealistically low in price will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the contract requirements and may be grounds for the rejection of the quotation. If a price quotation does not demonstrate price realism, it will be evaluated as unacceptable and the offeror will not be considered for the award.

Factor 2 – Technical Approach

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for its quality and evidence of the extent to which the contractor demonstrates its knowledge and a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the requirement and the capability to perform the requirements outlined in the Statement of Objectives

(SOO).

The offerors shall submit a detailed narrative that clearly articulates the proposed methodology, plan, and its processes to ensure that high quality work is performed and the achievement of the requirements as outlined in the SOO. The Offeror shall convert the SOO to a working solution in meeting all objectives into a Statement of Work (SOW).

The offerors shall demonstrate that it has the ability to perform the task within the times specified in any schedules incorporated during task order issuance. The technical approach shall further address the company’s experience with similar data projects. The offeror’s shall include quality control procedures that describe how they will perform the necessary activities to ensure the quality of work done by its staff is at the highest level and that customer requirements and expectations are met or exceeded.

The offeror’s proposals shall demonstrate an ability to plan and execute the requirements consistent with best practices in private and public sector. The offeror’s shall state their delivery capabilities and adequately describe their plans/approach in regards to supporting the requirements.

The offeror’s approach to quality control shall identify processes, procedures, and metrics, which are likely to result in a successful outcome within proposed costs and on schedule. This shall demonstrate ability to successfully manage key project areas related to schedule management, quality assurance and management, risk management, and communications management. Offeror’s shall submit any assumptions made as part of their proposal.

Proposals shall concisely describe the offeror’s response to the requirements of the solicitation. The use of general or vague statements such as “standard procedures will be used” and “will comply with specification,” are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the offeror’s lack of understanding.

Clarity and completeness of the proposal is critical. The proposal shall be written in a practical, clear and concise manner. It shall use quantifiable data whenever possible and avoid qualitative adjectives to the maximum extent possible. The proposal shall be internally consistent or the proposal will be considered unrealistic and may be considered unacceptable.

Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s past performance conducting projects of a similar size, scope, and complexity, as proven by the successful management of current and previous contracts of a similar magnitude, scope, and complexity. In performing this evaluation, the Government will also consider the Offeror’s reputation for timely, accurate, and cooperative performance, as well as information obtained from other sources. The Government will place greater value on verifiable experience that is similar or the same as the requirements of the SOW. The Government reserves the right to consider any recent past performance information retrieved from Government databases (e.g.

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Rating

System (CPARS) for past performance consideration.

Offeror’s must provide the following past performance information:

List three projects, completed within the past five years, with either the Federal Government or commercial customers, which demonstrate work similar in type to the work described in this solicitation.

Short description of the work performed

List of at least three but not more than five clients familiar with performance (include name, telephone number, physical address, and email address)

Contract and/or task order annual and total dollar amount, contract and/or task order period of performance, and role performed, including whether the offeror acted as a prime or subcontractor.

Weight of Factors

Price/cost, while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful Offeror for award of the contract contemplated by this solicitation.

However, cost/price may become a critical factor in source selection in the event that two or more offerors are determined to be essentially equal following the evaluation of all factors other than cost or price. In any event, the Government reserves the right to make an award to the offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

The offerors technical proposal and past performance are equal in significance, when combined they are significantly more important than price for the purpose of proposal evaluation. Contract award shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal, in conforming to the SOO and the contractor submitted converted SOW, provides an overall best value to the government. The price may become more important in determining award as proposals become more equal.