EVALUATION CRITERIA3.doc

WFM-0900-6-HFR-727-0908-01

RECOMMENDED NUMERICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

PROJECT NAME: Henslow’s Sparrow (TES) Habitat Improvement

AAP PROJECT NUMBER: WFM-0900-6-HFR-727-0908-01

Proposal Evaluation Criteria:

While bid price is a major factor, proposals shall also be evaluated and weighted using a combination of other technical factors. We intend to evaluate each firm’s offer based upon their bid; past satisfactory performance conducting similar type of work in similar environments using similar type of equipment; experience and technical expertise of personnel of the firm and key personnel; references provided by the firm from other firms or government departments who can vouch for the quality of work performed, timeliness of work, and compliance with contract specifications; and adequacy/capability of equipment to perform quality work in a timely and efficient manner.

Technical Factors:

Each offer’s technical and cost proposal will be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified as outlined below. The proposal/bid evaluation will be weighted and scored as follows, based on a 100 point scale:

1. Past Performance

(40 points) Sub factors:

Quality of workmanship

(20 points) Customer satisfaction and communications

(10 points)

Timeliness of performance

(10 points)

2. Experience and Technical Expertise of Firm and

Key Personnel

(30 points) Experience that is indicative of:

Relevant technical knowledge, skills, training, experience, and demonstrated ability to perform the work of key personnel; relationships with past cooperators and customers; willingness to help to resolve unexpected problems in a cooperative manner; and, concern for customer interest.

3. Adequacy of Equipment

(30 points)

Type of equipment and equipment capability to perform required work in a timely manner to meet contract specifications, in specified timeframe, and ability to produce desired product and post-treatment conditions.

Evaluation Criteria:

Each firm’s contract bid will be evaluated, in conjunction with references, demonstrated past experience and technical expertise, type/capability of equipment, and given a numerical score based on the three above listed evaluation criteria. The end evaluation numerical score will be graded as follows:

Excellent: Score range of 85-100. A contract bid with multiple major strengths, no major weaknesses in contractors demonstrated expertise, technical ability, and mechanical ability to meet the project goals in a timely manner, with high quality level of work, with a very high likelihood that project will get accomplished with few to no flaws or problems; high likelihood that contractor will be a cooperative partner in problem resolution.

Good: Score range of 70-85. A contract bid that demonstrates overall competence. One or more major strengths have been found and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist in contract bid. Good likelihood that contractor can achieve project goals and objectives, equipment is satisfactory to provide good end product in a timely manner with few flaws or problems anticipated, and contractor likely to be cooperative in problem resolution.

Fair/Acceptable: Score range of 50-70. A contract bid that demonstrates a reasonably sound record of competence, type and quality of equipment acceptable to perform desired work; technical experience of personnel and equipment marginally acceptable, but potential exists for problems to complete job in a timely manner; a potential exists that problems may develop in helping to resolve problems that may arise.

Unacceptable: Score range below 50. One or more major flaws in demonstrated ability of contractor to perform work in timely manner; equipment unacceptable in being able to perform to meet project goals and objectives; past work suggests weakness of technical ability and experience of key personnel to meet project specifications; past performance of similar type work suggests pattern of problems in meeting deadlines, contract specifications, and problems in willingness to resolve problems, or, no demonstrated past experience in being able to perform similar type of work in similar work environments using similar type of equipment; reasonable to high likelihood that project will not be completed in timely manner without problems or setbacks, high likelihood that desired product will not be achieved.