DRAFT EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD.pdf

DRAFT EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) USAID/Tanzania will evaluate the proposals received in response to the Tuhifadhi Maliasili Activity Request for Proposals (RFP) 72062120R00003 using the evaluation factors below and will award to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government.

(b) In evaluating offers, Technical Approach is the most important. Management Approach is the second most important and Past Performance is the least most important. All non-cost evaluation factors (these include all the Technical, Management, and Past Performance factors) when combined are significantly more important than cost or price.

(c) Although cost/price will not be given a rating, it will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, allowability and allocability and may be used in the “Best Value” determination.

M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Factor Identification – The technical evaluation committee will evaluate the offerors using the following factors:

FACTOR FACTOR NAME IMPORTANCE OR

WEIGHT

Factor 1 Technical Approach Most Important Factor 2 Management Approach Second Most Important Factor 3 Past Performance Least Important

b. Factor Instructions & Evaluation Criteria

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The technical approach will be evaluated based on the extent to which

• The Offeror presents a clear, feasible, inclusive, and technically sound approach that is likely to achieve maximum conservation gains within the contract period of performance.

• The approach to using GUCs presents logical, innovative, and strategic solutions that complement the overall technical approach.

Factor 2 – Management Approach

The management approach will be evaluated based on the extent to which

• The Offeror incorporates the necessary management structure, systems, and expertise to carry out the proposed approach.

• The Offeror presents a robust MEL strategy and plan with ambitious but achievable targets.

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Past performance information will first be evaluated to determine the degree of relevancy as compared to the Statement of Work. Relevant performance is defined as an activity with a life of project value of at least $25 million that include biodiversity conservation in a context similar to Tanzania. Each aspect of past performance will be evaluated as outlined below:

• Quality of product or service, including consistency in meeting goals and targets.

• Schedule, including timeliness against completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

• Cost controls, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting.

• Management/Business Relations - Addressing the history of professional behavior and overall business-like concern for the interests of the customer, including the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts, cooperative attitude in remedying problems, and timely completion of all administrative requirements.

• For prime Offerors who are not small business concerns, their utilization of Small

Business concerns as subcontractors, including efforts in achieving small business participation goals.

An Offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when:

(1) The Offeror lacks relevant performance history,

(2) Information on performance is not available, or

(3) The Offeror is a member of a class of Offerors where there is provision not to rate the class against a sub-factor.

When this occurs, an Offeror lacking relevant performance history is assigned a “Neutral” rating. An exception to the “Neutral” rating is when a non-small business prime has no history of subcontracting with small business concerns.

M.4 COST EVALUATION

Cost Proposals will be evaluated but will not be assigned a rating. For overall evaluation purposes, technical factors are considered significantly more important than cost/price factors.

Cost evaluation will be performed on the costs proposed in the cost proposal. The proposed cost will be evaluated for realism and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Cost realism is an assessment of accuracy with which proposed costs represent the most probable cost of performance. Cost realism evaluation will be performed as part of the evaluation process:

• To assess and verify the Offeror's understanding of the requirements;

• To assess the degree to which the cost proposal accurately reflects the Offeror’s understanding and the Offeror’s ability to provide the services for the offered costs; and

• To assess the degree to which the cost included accurately represents the Offeror’s technical approach and the risks related to that approach.

In evaluating the Offeror's Cost Proposal, the Government will estimate the overall cost to the Government, including fee, which in the Government's judgment will result from the Offeror's performance of the Contract. The result of the cost realism analysis will be used as part of the Agency’s best value/tradeoff analysis to determine the competitive range should the Contracting Officer determine that discussions are necessary.

M.4 DETERMINATION OF THE COMPETITIVE RANGE AND CONTRACT AWARD

If the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary, he/she will establish a Competitive Range composed of only the most highly rated proposals. In certain circumstances the Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. Should that be the case, the Contracting Officer may then limit offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated offers. The Government may exclude an offer if it is so deficient as to essentially require a new technical proposal. The Government may exclude an offer so unreasonably priced, in relation to more competitive offers, as to appear that there will be little or no chance of becoming competitive. The Government may exclude an offer requiring extensive discussions, a complete rewrite, or major revisions, to allow an Offeror unfair advantage over those more competitive offers.

M.5 SOURCE SELECTION

1. Award will be made by the Contracting Officer to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value to the US Government.

2. If the Contracting Officer determines that competing Technical Proposals are essentially equal, cost/price factors may become the determining factor in source selection. Conversely, if the Contracting Officer determines that competing cost/price proposals are essentially equal, technical factors may become the determining factor in source selection.