8. Evaluation Criteria Boat Package 9313.pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Boat, Motor & Trailer Package 9213 Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Contents Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Section 2: Evaluation Factors

1.1.1 Factor 1 - Proposed boat model meets FS specifications

1.1.2 Factor 2 - Proposed motor model meets FS specifications

1.1.3 Factor 3 - Proposed trailer model meets FS specifications

1.1.4 Factor 4 - Delivery within 180 days or less

1.1.5 Factor 5 - Dealer pick up location is within 75 miles from unit location

Section 3: Definitions

2.1 Go/No Go Ratings

2.2 Adjectival Ratings

2.3 Technical Confidence Rating

2.4 Past Performance Confidence

2.5 Performance Confidence Assessment

2.6 Quote/Proposal Metrics

Evaluation documentation must clearly summarize and justify evaluation results. Ensure that the documentation can lead to a logical best value decision. Including a cost/price factor is a requirement of FAR 15.304. If using a trade-off process, describe the evaluation factors and their relationship to the goals of the procurement.

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Ratings based on technical aspects of a quote/proposal will utilize the Adjectival Rating, Go/No Go and/or Confidence Ratings systems (defined below).

The technical evaluation factors are:

1. Proposed boat model meets FS specifications

2. Proposed motor model meets FS specifications

3. Proposed trailer model meets FS specifications

4. Production within 180 days or less.

5. Dealer pick up location is within 75 miles from unit location.

6. Total cost

Section 2: Evaluation Factors The award decision is based on evaluation factors that are tailored to the acquisition. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Evaluation factors are In ascending order of importance.

Evaluation factors and significant subfactors must:

1. Represent the key areas of importance and emphasis that directly relate to the purpose or objective of the acquisition; and

2. Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals.

1.1.1 Factor 1 - Proposed boat model meets FS specifications.

Submission Requirements:

USDA will use the Go/No Go, Adjectival Rating, and Confidence Ratings to evaluate this factor and elements below. Go/No Go is rated higher than Adjectival Rating, Confidence Ratings, or cost. Specifically, for a vendor to be considered for an award, the proposed solution must meet the minimum technical criteria listed.

a. Bottom Hull thickness 3/16 “ or greater

b. Wall height between 21 to 24 inches

c. Length between 18 to 20 ft.

d. Beam between 54 to 60 inches

e. Tiller steering

f. Hybrid rake, modified-V bow.

g. Fuel tank between 12 to 15 gallons w/fuel gauge and fuel/water separator

h. Fully welded subfloor floor with no trip hazard.

i. Rigging, USCG lights (LED), starting battery, locking lids, 4 cleats, battery on/off.

j. Slip resistant extreme duty (XD) style turf on front and rear deck

k. Flotation

1.1.2 Factor 2 - Proposed motor model meets FS specifications

USDA will use the Go/No Go, Adjectival Rating, and Confidence Ratings to evaluate this factor and elements below. Go/No Go is rated higher than Adjectival Rating, Confidence Ratings or cost. Specifically, for a vendor to be considered for an award, the

a. Four stroke motor

b. Within 40 to 45 HP

c. Squeeze Grip Throttle and hand guard

d. Tall Transom

e. Power Trim & Tilt

f. Tachometer/hour meter

g. Weedless propeller, Weed and line cutter

1.1.3 Factor 3 - Proposed trailer model meets FS specifications

USDA will use the Go/No Go, Adjectival Rating, and Confidence Ratings to evaluate this factor and elements below. Go/No Go is rated higher than Adjectival Rating, Confidence Ratings, or cost. Specifically, for a vendor to be considered for an award, the

a. Fit of boat between 18’ and 20’ in length

b. Size of wheel 14” or greater

c. Aluminum construction

d. Waterproof LED running and taillights

1.1.4 Factor 4 - Delivery within 180 days or less.

USDA will use Go/No Go to evaluate this factor.

1.1.5 Factor 5 - Dealer pick up location is within 75 miles from unit location.

USDA will use Go/No Go to evaluate this factor.

1.1.6 Factor 6 - Contract Cost/Price

USDA will evaluate this for lowest cost and technically acceptable.

Section 3: Definitions

2.1 Go/No Go Ratings

The term “Pass/Fail” will not be utilized in any rating; instead “Go/No Go” will be utilized. When Go/No Go ratings are utilized the following sentence shall appear in the request “Specifically, for a vendor to be considered for an award, the proposed solution must meet the minimum technical criteria listed.”

2.2 Adjectival Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Exceptional Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies and fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an excellent approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many strengths exist, far outweighing any weaknesses. The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated with very low risk.

Very Good Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies; fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates a very effective approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Some weaknesses may exist; however, the weaknesses, if any, are outweighed by strengths. A high quality of contract performance is anticipated with low risk.

Satisfactory Quote/Offer contains no deficiencies; addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. A quality contract performance is anticipated with an acceptable amount of risk.

Marginal Quote/Offer may contain deficiencies; fails to address all of the criteria and does not demonstrate an adequate approach/solution or understanding of the requirements. One or more weaknesses exist which are not offset by strengths.

Contract performance is anticipated with high risk.

Unsatisfactory Quote/Offer contains many deficiencies and does not address all aspects of the criteria and/or does not present evidence demonstrating an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many weaknesses and/or omissions exist creating an unacceptable risk.

2.3 Technical Confidence Rating

Confidence Rating Definition

High Confidence (Low Risk)

The Government has high confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence (Moderate Risk)

The Government has some confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence (High Risk)

The Government has low confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

2.4 Past Performance Confidence

Rating Description

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Past/present performance effort involved some of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation required.

2.5 Performance Confidence Assessment

2.6 Quote/Proposal Metrics

When identifying the merits of a quote/proposal the following three terms shall be utilized along with the definitions.

Narrative Element Definition Strength A significant, outstanding, or exceptionally positive aspect of a Quote/Offer.

Weakness Any aspect of a Quote/Offer increasing the potential for problems and issues with regard to contract performance. The Quote/Offer provides a minimally acceptable response to the Government’s requirements. The response leaves the evaluator with uncertainty as to the understanding of the work, capability to successfully perform the work, or capability to effectively manage the work effort.

Deficiency A material failure of a Quote/Offer to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a Quote/Offer increasing the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.