Attachment 4 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Sample Evaluation Criteria when using Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Pricing

Evaluation Criteria The provision at FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services is not applicable to this solicitation. In lieu of this provision, quotes will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 12.203 based on the criteria listed below. Award will be made to the offeror with the highest technically rated quotation with fair and reasonable pricing and acceptable or neutral past performance.

Technical Approach: The technical approach will evaluate the ability of the offeror to provide a sound and compliant approach that meets all requirements and shows a thorough understanding of them. It is the contractor's responsibility to ensure their quotation clearly demonstrates their capability to meet these requirements. All offerors must provide the following minimum information and documentation with their quotations to be considered responsive and have their offers evaluated:

• Ability of the offeror to meet the Delivery requirements listed in the Statement of Work

(SOW).

• Detailed explanation of any requirement listed in the SOW that cannot be successfully accomplished by the offeror.

• Detailed explanation of the offeror’s ability to supply and provide installation / integration services with the current ePACS security system. A simple statement of capabilities will not suffice. The offeror must address how they will accomplish the requirements of the SOW.

• Detailed explanation of how the offeror will handle Test and Evaluation of items IAW section 07 and section 08 of the SOW.

Price: Any quantity price discounts and discounts for prompt payment should be included in this section. The offeror shall provide pricing as requested in the attached spreadsheet titled “Schedule of Items”. Any quantity price discounts and discounts for prompt payment should be included in this section. The offeror’s quotation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 12.204, to determine if it is fair and reasonable.

For purposes of evaluation, the potential need to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 to extend a period of performance for a maximum period of six (6) months beyond any period of performance will be considered the same for all offerors. The Government will consider that if the extension of service clause (FAR 52.217-8) is exercised, it will be on the exact same rates and terms, other than length of performance, as the period of performance being extended.

determine total evaluated price of the contract.

Past Performance:

The Government may utilize any references provided by the Contractor, along with information available from past contracts/orders with the USDA and any information found using sources such as Federal Government sources or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS) to determine if the Contractor has acceptable or neutral Past Performance. Past Performance will be evaluated using the following rating system:

• Acceptable: The contractor shows a demonstrated ability to meet contract requirements in prior or current contracts, including quality of work, timeliness, cost control, business relations, and adherence to contract terms.

• Neutral: Offeror does not have a past performance record.

• Unacceptable: The contractor has a documented history of failing to meet contract requirements, including poor quality, missed deadlines, cost overruns, lack of responsiveness, or unethical behavior.

Evaluation Method:

All quotations will be evaluated to identify the offeror presenting the most technically advantageous solution based on the stated evaluation criteria. Once the highest technically rated offeror is identified, their price will be evaluated to determine whether it is fair and reasonable.

Past performance will also be assessed to ensure it is acceptable or neutral.

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the highest technically rated, provided that:

• The proposed price is fair and reasonable, and

• Past performance is assessed as acceptable or neutral.

Award will not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offeror. Tradeoffs will not be conducted.