Attachment 3 Recommended Evaluation Criteria.docx
DOCX document 56 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Huron-Manistee - Document and Files Scanning Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 12444522Q0067
- Issued by
- Department of Agriculture Forest Service
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| NRE_Commercial Services_Combined SS_RFQ_12444522Q0067.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 Schedule of Items_fillable.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 4 Wage Determination_2015-4877.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 Statement of Work.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Contents
| Section 1: Evaluation Methodology | 3 | |
| Section 2: Evaluation Factors | 3 | |
| 1.1 | Factor 1 Proposal | 3 |
| 1.1.1 | Overall Proposal | 3 |
| 1.1.2 | Technical Capability | 3 |
| 1.1.3 | Relevant Expertise/Document Security | 3 |
| 1.2 | Factor 2: Past Performance | 3 |
| 1.2.1 | Past Performance | 3 |
| 1.3 | Factor 3: Cost/Price | 3 |
| 1.3.1 | Contract Cost/Price | 3 |
| Section 3: Definitions | 4 | |
| 2.1 | Go/No Go Ratings | 4 |
| 2.2 | Adjectival Ratings | 4 |
| 2.3 | Technical Confidence Rating | 4 |
| 2.4 | Past Performance Confidence | 4 |
| 2.5 | Performance Confidence Assessment | 5 |
| 2.6 | Quote/Proposal Metrics | 5 |
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
1. Proposal
2. Technical Capability
3. Relevant Expertise/Document Security
Section 2: Evaluation Factors
1.1 Factor 1 Proposal
1.1.1 Overall Proposal
Submission Requirements:
Proposal must meet all the requirements listed in the Statement of Work.
Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:
The adjectival rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.
1.1.2 Technical Capability
Submission Requirements:
The company must show they have the technical capabilities to achieve the desired outcome and in the desired timeframes. Must show they have Optical Character Recognition (OCR) ability, blank sheet removal process, at least 300 dpi black and white and at least 600 dpi color scanning ability, ability to scan multiple paper weights without damaging documents, and ability and willingness to adjust saturation for effective scanning or copying and scanning for delicate or difficult documents.
Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:
The adjectival rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.
1.1.3 Relevant Expertise/Document Security
Submission Requirements:
Company must show that they are experienced with handling these types of sensitive documents and providing safe and secure facilities when handling the documents. Company must show that the documents will remain with the original vendor and no work will be sourced/vended to a third party.
Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:
The adjectival rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.
1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance
1.2.1 Past Performance
Submission Requirements:
The company must show they have previous experience in processing large scale scanning services.
Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:
The adjectival rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.
1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price
1.3.1 Contract Cost/Price
Submission Requirements:
The cost must show a not-to-exceed quote that will have a final bill based on the actual volume of work/scans/files that are received and completed. Quotes for individual options as outlined in the scope of work must be included. Any or all options may be chosen, and all options are scalable.
Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:
The adjectival rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.
Section 3: Definitions
2.1 Go/No Go Ratings
Specifically, for a vendor to be considered for an award, the proposed solution must meet the minimum technical criteria listed.
2.2 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. |
2.3 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.
2.4 Past Performance Confidence
| Rating |
| Description |
| Relevant |
| Past/present performance effort involved much of the similarity, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
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.
2.5 Performance Confidence Assessment
| 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. |
2.6 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. |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .