Attachment-02 Quote Evaluation Criteria Quemado Lake Well Repair Gila NF.pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation documentation must clearly summarize and justify evaluation results. Ensure that the documentation can lead to a logical best value decision. Including a cost/price factor is a requirement of FAR 15.304. If using a trade-off process, describe the evaluation factors and their relationship to the goals of the procurement.

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Proposals will be evaluated using Adjectival and Confidence Ratings. Award will be made on a Best Value Tradeoff basis.

Section 2: Evaluation Factors Relative Importance:

Non-price factors combined are significantly more important than price.

Order of Importance:

Descending order of importance.

Factor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 1.1 – Well Repair and Road Repair Methodology Submission Requirements:

Casing removal methods, casing and sealing approach, regulatory compliance, road repair methodology.

Evaluation Criteria:

Adjectival Rating and Technical Confidence Rating.

Subfactor 1.2 – Schedule and Logistics Submission Requirements:

Project schedule, mobilization plan.

Evaluation Criteria:

Adjectival Rating.

Subfactor 1.3 – Key Personnel and Experience Submission Requirements:

Qualifications and licenses of key personnel.

Evaluation Criteria:

Adjectival Rating.

Factor 2: Past Performance Submission Requirements:

Up to three relevant projects completed within the last five years.

Evaluation Criteria:

Relevancy, quality, and performance confidence.

Factor 3: Cost/Price Submission Requirements:

Fixed-price proposal with itemized costs.

Evaluation Criteria:

Price reasonableness and realism.

Section 3: Definitions

1.1 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.”

1.2 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.

1.3 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.

1.4 Past Performance Confidence

Rating Description

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

1.5 Performance Confidence Assessment

1.6 Quote/Proposal Metrics

When identifying the merits of a quote/proposal the following three terms shall be utilized along with the definitions.

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.

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.