Attachment 2 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf
PDF 84 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Underwater Training and Testing
- Solicitation number
- 80JSC026Q0010
About this file
This document is Attachment 2 to RFQ 80JSC026Q0010 containing the evaluation criteria for the Underwater Training mission analog procurement.
The evaluation process consists of two sequential steps. Step One requires all quoters to confirm with a simple yes/no response that their quote addresses RFQ 80JSC026Q0010 for the Underwater Training mission analog. Non-compliant quotes and those responding "No" are eliminated from consideration. Step Two applies a trade-off evaluation methodology to compliant quotes using three factors in descending order of importance: Factor 1 (Technical Acceptability), Factor 2 (Past Performance), and Factor 3 (Price). Technical Acceptability and Past Performance combined are significantly more important than Price, though Price importance increases proportionally as Technical and Past Performance quotes become more equal among quoters.
Factor 1 (Technical Acceptability) includes Subfactor 1A (Schedule) and is evaluated by space analog experts and NASA program personnel assessing the facility's capabilities, team expertise, required government oversight, potential risks, and submitted schedule. Factor 2 (Past Performance) evaluates both facility and personnel experience using quoter-provided information, references, and government sources including CPARS and SAM.gov. Factor 3 (Price) evaluates the total evaluated price and detailed pricing sheet for reasonableness and completeness using various price analysis techniques. All factors receive adjectival ratings: Outstanding (very low schedule/cost/safety/performance risk with commensurate experience), Acceptable (adequate schedule and experience with low risk), or Unacceptable (inadequate schedule and experience with high risk to schedule, cost, safety, or performance).
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 3 - Pricing Sheet_Rev. 1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation - 80JSC026Q0010.pdf | ||
| Attachmnet 1 - PWS.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - Pricing Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Attachment 2 7/31/2026 80JSC026Q0010
Evaluation Criteria
STEP ONE (1) – MEETING KEY RFQ REQUIREMENTS
Quoters shall provide only a Yes or No response to the following question. Please restate the question below verbatim in your written response and respond with either a yes or no.
Is the quote submitted in response to this RFQ 80JSC026Q0010 – Underwater Training mission analog?
All Quoters will be evaluated for compliance with the RFQ requirements. Non-compliant quotes will be eliminated from this competition and will not be further evaluated. Quoters responding “No” will be eliminated from this competition and the quote will not be further evaluated. Quoters who responded “Yes”, will then have their quote further evaluated using the factors listed in Step Two (2) – Trade-off.
STEP TWO (2) – TRADE-OFF
The Step Two Trade-Off evaluation consists of the following factors:
Factor 1: Technical Acceptability Subfactor 1A: Schedule
Factor 2: Past Performance
Factor 3: Price
The trade-off factors above are listed in descending order of importance: Technical Acceptability is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price.
Technical Acceptability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different Quoter’s Technical and Past Performance quotes.
FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY All compliant quotes will be evaluated by space analog experts with expertise and NASA program personnel to assess the facility’s capabilities to perform the work including safety related tasks, the expertise of the quoter team, the level of government oversight required to conduct the tasks, potential risks to accomplish the work described in the RFQ, and schedule provided by the quoter.
SUBFACTOR 1A: SCHEDULE All compliant quotes will be evaluated to assess potential risks to the submitted schedule.
Adjectival ratings will be assigned for Technical Acceptability and Schedule (Please reference definitions below).
FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE All compliant quotes will be evaluated to assess past performance.
In addition to the information provided by the Quoter and its references, the Government reserves the right to evaluate information relative to performance using other sources of information such as the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), SAM.gov, or other sources known to the Government. Past performance includes both the facilities experience and the personnel experience.
Adjectival ratings will be assigned for Past Performance (Please reference definitions below).
FACTOR 3: PRICE
The quote will be evaluated for price reasonableness and completeness. Reasonableness will be determined utilizing various price analysis techniques of the total evaluated price (TEP) and the Quoter’s detailed pricing sheet.
See Definitions below:
TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY
Outstanding
Quote indicates a schedule and experience commensurate with an outstanding rating.
Risks have a very low potential to impact schedule, cost, safety practices or performance.
Acceptable Quote indicates an adequate schedule and experience with an understanding of the requirements. Risks have a low potential to impact schedule, cost, safety practices or performance.
Unacceptable Quote has an inadequate schedule for NASA needs and experience that reflects a lack of understanding of the requirements.
Risks have a high potential to impact schedule, cost, safety practices or performance.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .