Evaluation_Factors.pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award:

1. Basis For Award: The Government intends to award a Firm-Fixed Price Contract to the responsible Offeror conforming to the RFP that is determined to be the Best Value to the Government. The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff process to evaluate proposals. The three (3) factors the Government will evaluate are Past Performance, Technical Capability, and Price.

2. EVALUATION METHODOGY: The Government will evaluate the Offerors' proposals using the criteria outlined in Evaluation Factors for Award of the solicitation. The Government intends to award without discussions, but if discussions become necessary they will be accomplished in accordance with FAR 15.

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. No assumptions will be made by Government evaluators regarding areas not defined in the Offeror's written proposal.

• Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

• Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

• Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

a. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance.

The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror's proposed approach to achieving the Technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

b. Proposals will be evaluated for merit and the ability to satisfy the objectives of the acquisition based on the evaluation criteria and factors listed herein. Cursory responses or responses that merely reiterate or reformulate the Performance Work Statement (PWS) will not be considered to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Assurance of experience, capability, and qualifications which clearly demonstrate and support the Offeror's claim are essential. The absence of such evidence will adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal. The Government will award the contract to the responsive, responsible Offeror whose proposal provides the most advantageous, reasonable, and affordable alternative to the Government, based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors:

• Past Performance Factor

• Technical Capability Factor

• Price Factor

c. Rejection of unrealistic offers: Any proposal considered unrealistic will be judged as either exhibiting a lack of competence or as failing to comprehend the Government's requirements and may be rejected for either reason. Furthermore, any significant inconsistency between the Technical and Price proposals, if unexplained, may be grounds for rejection of the entire proposal.

3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CRITERIA AND FACTORS

a. Past Performance Factor - The Past Performance Factor is the most important factor and is slightly more important that the Technical Capability Factor, which is significantly more important than the Price Factor.

b. Technical Capability Factor - The Technical Capability Factor is slightly less important than the Past Performance Factor and significantly more important than the Price Factor.

c. Price Factor - The Price Factor is significantly less important than all non-cost factors combined.

The Price Factor may play an additional role since considerations of cost in terms of overall total program evaluated costs, best value, and affordability may be controlling in circumstances where two or more proposals are otherwise adjudged equal or when a technically superior proposal is at a cost that the Government cannot afford.

d. Past Performance and Technical Capability, when combined, are significantly more important that Price.

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The Government will utilize the following evaluation criteria in evaluating Offerors proposals:

a. Price Factor will not be assigned an adjectival rating. Proposals will be evaluated on price and cost realism. The basis for award for the Price area will be total evaluated price. The requirement will be evaluated by adding the total price for the base year and all 4 option years. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed price completeness, reasonableness, and realism.

b. Technical Factor: The Offeror's Technical Capability (Volume II) will be evaluated to assess the technical merits and relative risk associated with the likelihood of success in executing requirements. The proposal will be given a combined technical/risk adjectival rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable at the factor level as defined below. An Offeror's proposal must receive an Acceptable at a minimum in order for the proposal to be considered one that meets the minimum performance or capability requirements. Evidence of innovative and/or unique approaches is beneficial. For ease of briefing purposes, color will be used in conjunction with rating when briefing.

(1) Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

• Color: Blue

Rating: Outstanding Description: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

• Color: Purple Rating: Good

Description: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

• Color: Green

Rating: Acceptable Description: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

• Color: Yellow

Rating: Marginal Description: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

• Color: Red

Rating: Unacceptable Description: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

c. Past Performance Factor: Past Performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The Government will assess the degree of confidence it has in the expectation that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements in accordance with the contract terms based on the Offerors demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

The Government intends to assess the references provided with the Offeror's current proposal and other information available against the past performance evaluation criteria as set forth below.

• In evaluating performance history, the Government may review the Offeror's current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreement.

• In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other contracts performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the Government by the Offeror. It may also use any significant past performance that occurs after the solicitation closing date and prior to award. The Government is not required to interview all points of contact identified by Offerors.

• The Government may consider the recency, relevancy, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as general trends in performance and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem/problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may result in an overall lower confidence assessment rating.

• Recency. The recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. For the purpose of this requirement, recency will be evaluated as any contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within the following time standards: five (5) years prior to the RFP closing date, even if the award date is outside this five (5) year window.

• Relevancy. The relevancy of the past performance information will be evaluated as follows:

o Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope (experience with server administration and bioinformatics consulting and knowledge of Newcastle disease virus, chicken viruses, and chicken genome) and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

o Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.