Attachment 1 Evaluation Factors.pdf

Attachment 1 Evaluation Factors

The evaluation will be based on the below Evaluation Criteria and the offeror’s ability to achieve the scope requirements as outlined in the statement of work. Award will be made to the offeror’s whose quote conforms to the RFQ and all specifications within the Statement of Work.

Factor 1. Experience and Technical Competence

The Government will assess its confidence that the Offeror can successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on the answers provided in response to the statement of work. Consideration will be given to the relevancy of the Offeror’s experience and the anticipated benefits and/or risks to the Government as demonstrated in the Offeror’s response to questions. Greater consideration will be given to demonstrated experience which is more relevant.

Factor 2. Past Performance

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s past performance (minimum of 3 examples) and completion requirements of a similar size, scope, and complexity, as proven by the successful management of current and previous contracts of a similar magnitude, scope, and complexity.

Factor 3. Price

The offeror shall propose a firm-fixed price schedule for services, as outlined in the Statement of Work and Solicitation.

To determine price reasonableness, the government will review price to ensure that offerors have a clear understanding of the work and skills required for project or contract performance. Price Quotations determined to be unrealistic in terms of technical commitment or unrealistically low in price will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the contract requirements and may be grounds for the rejection of the quotation. If a price quotation does not demonstrate price realism, it will be evaluated as unacceptable, and the offeror will not be considered for the award.

Rating System Definitions

• Strength: An element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government.

• Significant Strength: An element of a proposal which significantly exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a way that is very beneficial to the Government.

• Weakness: A flaw in a proposal that increases the chance of unsuccessful performance.

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

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

Rating System for Factor 1 Rating Definitions High Confidence The Government has high confidence the Offeror understands the requirement, proposed a sound approach, and will successfully perform the requirements of the SOW, Level of performance risk is low.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence the Offeror understands the requirement, proposed sound approach and will successfully perform the requirements of the SOW. Level of performance risk is moderate.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence the Offeror understands the requirement, proposed an approach where the Government is unsure the Offeror can successfully perform the requirements of the SOW.

Level of performance risk is high.

Rating System for Factor 2 Rating Definitions

High Confidence The Offeror has verified and relevant past performance that provides high confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the SOW with low performance risk.

Some Confidence The Offeror has some verified and somewhat relevant past performance that provides some confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the SOW with moderate performance risk.

Low Confidence The Offeror has a record of poor past performance that provides low confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the SOW. Level of performance risk is high