Amendment 0002 Attachment H Evaluation Criteria.pdf

ATTACHMENT H

Evaluation Criteria

ADMINISTRATIVE, PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT, DRAFTER/CAD, AND

ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES

89503425QWA001011

I

EVALUATION CRITERIA-

The Government will issue an Order resulting from this solicitation to the responsible vendor whose quote conforms to the requirements, and whose quote represents the overall best value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The best value award decision will be made after assessment of the described below factors.

Past Performance and Program Management approach, when combined will be more important than Price. Price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.

Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government's confidence in the vendor's ability to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on the recent and relevant past performance efforts and the vendor's performance thereto. The government will consider information identified by each vendor, responses to customer questionnaires regarding the vendor's performance on recent and relevant efforts, as well as any additional information obtained by the Government. Such information may be obtained but not limited to:

( 1) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CP ARS).

(2) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

(3) Questionnaires tailored to the circumstances for this acquisition.

The Government will consider the past performance of the prime and any proposed subcontractor or team arrangement in determining the past performance of the vendor for purposes of this solicitation.

The past performance effort shall currently be on-going or completed within the last three years from date of the closing of this solicitation.

An overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be assigned for each vendor.

Factor 1 - Past Performance

Criteria for Past Performance -

Highly Relevant: Past performance effort is essenHally the same size, scope, and complexity of effort as the solicitation requirements.

Relevant: Past performance effort is mostly the same size, scope, and complexity of effort as the solicitation requirements.

Somewhat Relevant: Past performance effort has some of the same size, scope and complexity of effort as the solicitation requirements.

89503425QWA001011 Page 1

Not Relevant: Past performance effort has none of the size, scope, and complexity of effort as the solicitation requirements.

An overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be assigned for each quote. The following definitions apply based on the vendor's performance record:

Significant Confidence: The contractor will, with absolute certainty, perform the required effort successfully.

Satisfactory Confidence: The contractor will, with most certainty, perform the required effort successfully.

Marginal Confidence: The contractor will, most certainly have difficulty, performing the required effort successfully.

No Confidence: The contractor will, most certainly have extreme difficulty, performing the required effort successfully.

Unknown Confidence: No performance record is identifiable.

Note: If a vendor does not have any recent or relevant past performance, that vendor will receive an overall past performance rating of Unknown Confidence, which will be considered neither favorably or unfavorably.

Factor 2 - Program Management

The Government will evaluate each vendors Program Management approach to the following:

1. Managing its own workforce in ensuring all performance requirements are fully met.

2. Resume for the Program Manager.

3. Company's organization management structure.

4. Recruitment, training, and retention.

5. Transition plan

Criteria for Program Management -

Exceptional: The vendor demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Two or more strengths have been identified which will benefit the Government.

Good: The vendor demonstrates a strong understanding of the requirements and an approach that exceeds performance or capability tandards. One or more strengths have been identified which will benefit the Government. No weaknesses or deficiencies identified.

89503425QWA001011 Page 2

Satisfactory: The vendor demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Any strengths or weaknesses identified are not considered of significance. No deficiencies identified.

Marginal: The vendor demonstrates a weak understanding of the requirements and an approach that somewhat meets performance or capability standards. No strengths were identified and one or more significant weaknesses may be identified, but no deficiencies.

Unsatisfactory: The vendor demonstrates a poor understanding of the requirements and an approach that fails to meet performance or capability standards. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the quote. One or more significant weaknesses may be identified, and one or more deficiencies identified

Factor 3 - Price

Pricing will not be scored/rated, but will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.

Completeness will be determined based on the vendor submitting prices for all elements shown in the Schedule. Reasonableness will be determined based ori the following:

1. Comparison of other quotes received.

2. Comparison of quoted prices with the independent government cost estimate.

3. Comparison of quoted prices with historical information.

89503425QWA001011 Page 3