Attachment 2- Evaluation Criteria.pdf

FAR 52.212-2- Evaluation—Commercial Items

(a) The Government intends to award one firm fixed priced purchase order to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the RFQ requirements represents best value, price and non-price factors considered.

All proposals will be subjected to an initial screening for completeness and conformance with RFQ instructions before being evaluated. A proposal that is incomplete will not be considered for award. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers (Factors other than price when combined are approximately equal when compared to price):

FACTOR 1 - Price - Submitted pricing must be all inclusive; a breakdown is required to include, but not limited to: Supervision, Labor, Equipment, Transportation with fuel, Incidentals and subcontracting if applicable.

Proposed prices shall be evaluated for completeness, and reasonableness. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced.

Please include applicable taxes with your quote.

FACTOR 2 - Technical - Offeror shall submit a capabilities statement/technical narrative with their submission addressing the sub-factors below; each Sub-Factor is equally weighed.

The capabilities statement/technical narrative shall be a written submission limited to a total of 5 single-spaced pages, one-sided, letter size pages, 10-12 point font size in an easily readable font, such as Times new Roman. Anything over 5 pages will not be considered.

Sub-factor 1 - Technical Approach - Summarize how the proposed work will be completed in a manner consistent with industry standards and/or practices which also satisfy Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. The offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and the scope of the work required. Failure to provide realistic, reasonable and complete information may reflect a lack of understanding of the requirements and may result in a determination that the vendor is technically unacceptable.

Sub-factor 2 -Technical Capability – Provide the names of the key personnel, positions/titles.

Include years of relevant experience and/or certifications. Provide a summary of local resources available (i.e. Number of local area candidates immediately available for placement.

The evaluation will consist of assessing the Offeror’s approach and capabilities as demonstrated in the capabilities statement/narrative, for accomplishing tasks outlined in the PWS. The offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and the scope of the work required. The capabilities statement/technical narrative must demonstrate an appropriate level of resources and capabilities necessary to accomplish the requirements listed in the PWS.

Based upon the Government’s evaluation of offeror submitted information, one of the following combined technical/risk rating will be assigned which reflect the degree to which the offeror’s response meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Failure to provide realistic, reasonable and complete information may reflect a lack of understanding of the requirements and may result in a determination that the vendor is technically unacceptable.

FACTOR 3 - Past Performance The Government will analyze and consider the risk and confidence level illustrated by relevant, recent past performance in which the company has performed utilizing submitted past performance questionnaires and any sources available including, but not limited to:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

• Other Publicly Available Information

Recent - Recent past performance shall be performance that is either on-going or was completed within three (3) years of the solicitation closing date.

Relevant - Relevancy is defined as follows:

Relevancy Ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant The reference demonstrates experience with Military Dining Facility, Mess Hall or Cafeteria operations support services under contract/agreement with Federal or State entities within the past three years.

Relevant The reference demonstrates experience with Institutional/Commercial Dining Facility, or Cafeteria operations support services under contract/agreement with other than Federal/State entities within the past three years.

Somewhat Relevant The reference demonstrates experience with other Food Service Facility related support services within the past three years.

Not Relevant None of the above.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Performance Ratings and Confidence Assessment. An assessment of recency and relevancy shall be given to each of the Offeror's past performance references. The Offeror shall then receive one of the following adjectival ratings as an overall confidence assessment describing how well the Offeror is expected to perform given the Offeror's performance history, to include information obtained from CPARS/FAPIIS. More-recent and more-relevant past recent and less-relevant information. Performance information shall have greater weight in the Offeror's overall confidence assessment relative to less-recent and less-relevant information.

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s verifiable performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s verifiable performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort .

Neutral Confidence No verifiable performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s verifiable performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s verifiable performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(d) The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors shall ensure their initial proposal contains its best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

However, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to hold discussions if necessary.

(e) Note: In Accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.104-1: To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:

1. Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them

2. Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;

3. Have a satisfactory performance record.

4. Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics

5. Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors).

6. Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them; and

7. Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

(End of Provision)