Attachment 4 Evaluation Criteria.pdf

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Contents Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Section 2: Evaluation Factors

1.1 Factor 1 Technical Capability

1.1.1 Subfactor 1 WV Water Well Driller License

1.1.2 Subfactor 2 Technical Experience

1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price

Section 3: Definitions

4.1 Adjectival Ratings

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology

Adjectival Evaluation will be based on Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price as outlined below.

Section 2: Evaluation Factors

1.1 Factor 1 Technical Capability

1.1.1 Subfactor 1 WV Water Well Driller License

Submission Requirements:

Contractor must submit a copy of their West Virginia Water Well Driller’s License for a Key Person who will be assigned to this project.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Valid West Virginia Water Well Driller’s License is required to be considered Technically capable of performing this scope of work. Not including a License will result in a Unsatisfactory Rating

1.1.2 Subfactor 2 Technical Experience

Submission Requirements:

Contractor must submit a list of completed projects that are similar in nature to the proposed project, and details about the projects including scope, total cost.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Type, size, and relevance of projects shall be considered as part of this evaluation.

1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

Contractor shall submit a list of completed water well related projects, along with a list of references with contact information to be evaluated for past performance. List of completed projects to include change orders, schedule adherence, and cost overrun.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

One or more references will be contacted to determine quality of past performance.

1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price

Submission Requirements:

Contractor shall submit a quote to complete the work in the project scope. Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Quotes shall be evaluated on a best value basis. Lowest quote may not be accepted, pending the above listed evaluation factors.

Section 3: Definitions

4.1 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.