A10_Atch_3_Dwg2_SheepTreasureProposalEvaluationCriteria.pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Contents Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Section 2: Evaluation Factors

1.1 Factor 1 Technical

1.1.1 Technical Competency

1.1.2 Management Plan/Key Personnel

1.1.3 Schedule

1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

1.2.1 Past Performance

1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price

1.3.1 Contract Cost/Price

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

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Technical Evaluation Factors:

Technical Competency

Does the bidder have the expertise to accomplish the work in a quality manner that will bring value to the taxpayers.

Management Plan/Key Personnel Do the designated personnel involved in the project possess the qualifications, knowledge, and experience necessary to accomplish the scope of the project with good workmanship and minimal issues.

Schedule Is the proposed schedule feasible and allowable? Some schedule considerations are: Completion of bridge design, submission of shop drawings to the Forest Service for approval, bridge fabrication and delivery, timing of setting new grade beams (will it be late in the year and the ground frozen?), compliance with instream work permit.

Section 2: Evaluation Factors

Cost/Price is the most important evaluation factor; all other factors/subfactors are of equal importance. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

1.1 Factor 1 Technical

1.1.1 Technical Competency

Submission Requirements:

Submit a summary of relevant past performance including supporting details.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Adjectival Rating

1.1.2 Management Plan/Key Personnel

Submission Requirements:

Profile of Key Personnel. Primary person of interest is the jobsite Superintendent/Foreman that will interact directly with the Contracting Officer Representative.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Confidence Rating.

1.1.3 Schedule

Submission Requirements:

Proposed schedule to accomplish the scope of this project. The schedule should include but is not limited to:

bridge design, bridge fabrication and transportation, mobilization, removal and disposal of existing bridge, bridge installation, approach construction, closeout, final billing.

Adjectival Rating and Confidence Ratings. The adjectival rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.

1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

1.2.1 Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

Submit a summary of relevant past performance including supporting details. Contracting Officer evaluations from bidder’s previous contracts will be used in this evaluation.

Rating will be based on Relevancy, Recency and Quality. All criteria is of equal importance.

1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price

1.3.1 Contract Cost/Price

Submission Requirements:

Insert Cost submission requirements here.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Insert Evaluation Criteria here.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.