Attach 003_Proposal Evaluation Criteria.pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Contents

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology

Section 2: Evaluation Factors

1.1 Factor 1 KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE

1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

1.3 Factor 3: PROGRESS SCHEDULE AND QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

1.4 Factor 3: Cost/Price

Section 3: Definitions

Adjective Ranking

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology

Award will be made to that concern(s), (1) whose proposal is technically acceptable and (2) whose technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government. While cost is secondary to technical capability, it will be a factor in the award decision. The critical factor in making any cost/technical trade-off is not the spread between the technical ratings, but rather what is the significance of that difference. The significance of the spread in rankings will be determined on the basis of what that difference might mean in terms of performance and what it would cost the Government to take advantage of it. Award may not necessarily be made to that concern submitting the lowest quote. Also, award may not necessarily be made for technical capabilities that would appear to exceed those needed for the successful performance of the work.

The Government reserves the right to make cost/technical trade-offs that are in the best interest and to the advantage of the Government.

Award may be made without further negotiations. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms, from a price and technical standpoint, which the quoter can submit to the Government. However, the

Government may, after evaluation of proposals, conduct further oral or written discussions as appropriate, with all quoters whose proposals are within the competitive range.

In addition to other factors, quotes will be evaluated on the basis of advantages and disadvantages to the

Government that might result from making more than one award (multiple awards). It is assumed, for the purpose of evaluating proposals, that $500 would be the administrative cost to the Government for issuing and administering each contract awarded under this solicitation and individual awards shall be for the items or combination of items that result in the lowest aggregate cost to the Government, including the assumed administrative costs.

Award will be by Item.

Section 2: Evaluation Factors

The award decision is based on evaluation factors tailored to the acquisition. Responses to the Request for

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: 1) Knowledge/Experience; 2) Past

Performance; 3) Progress Schedule and Quality Control Plan. These criteria are listed in descending order of importance.

1.1 Factor 1 KNOWLEDGE/EXPERIENCE

Demonstrate knowledge in plant taxonomy, identification and classification; identifying habitat associations and delineations; and experience identifying key habitats for predicting plant occurrences by habitat in Lake States forest communities. Bidders and their employees should demonstrate experience in searching for and identifying uncommon, rare and sensitive species of the Lake States forests with specific attention to endangered, threatened, and special concern plant species in Northern Minnesota. In addition, a successfully completed 4-year course of study leading to a BS degree in botany or related biological field is desirable.

Bidders and their employees will have demonstrated experience in and/or knowledge of working in the woods.

This includes orienteering using GPS, aerial photographs, compartment maps, compasses and other such tools, as well as moving overland/off-roads and trails, and detecting general forest conditions. Bidders and their employees should have experience in aerial photo interpretation, forest stand delineation, and thorough field documentation.

Supply complete resumes for all surveyors with pertinent information related to surveyors’ knowledge and experience related to the contract work. Resumes should include a minimum of three references with knowledge of the employee’s knowledge and experience in completion of rare plant surveys. Names, addresses, and phone numbers must be included.

1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

Demonstrate execution of contracts in sensitive plant surveys or inventory of sensitive plants, including new locations and species discovered.

1.3 Factor 3: PROGRESS SCHEDULE AND QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

Provide a written schedule/plan for completion of the work, and a Quality Control Plan documenting the bidder’s ability and commitment to completing the work to professional standards, including field execution of surveys and data handling and management.

1.4 Factor 4: Cost/Price

Section 3: Definitions

Adjectival evaluation methods have been used successfully in the past and will be used for this evaluation. The

Ranking system noted will be applied to each factor identified in the evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are established below.

Adjective Ranking

Outstanding- Very comprehensive, in depth, clear response, uniformly outstanding in quality. Consistently high quality performance can be expected.

Excellent- Extensive, detailed response to all requirements, similar to outstanding in quality, but with minor areas of unevenness or spottiness.

“Minor areas of unevenness or spottiness” relates to quality inconsistent with the majority of the proposal or omissions that have a minor impact in accomplishing the function.

Good- The response meets all minimum requirements, generally is of acceptable quality;

problem areas consist of minor weaknesses that would not affect contract performance.

Fair- The response marginally meets all minimum requirements.

Unsatisfactory- Fails to meet with the basic evaluation criteria requirements.

The same adjectival evaluation ranking system will be applied for a general ranking of each contractor’s technical proposal. This ranking will be used along with Cost/Price to guide determination of best-value for the government.