Attachment 5 Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Attachment 5

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

Technical Evaluation Criteria

Selection of a quoter for contract award will be based on an evaluation of quotations against the six (6) factors. The factors in order of importance are: 1. Technical Capabilities, 2. Management Experience, 3. Personnel Experience, 4. Facilities and Equipment, 5. past performance, and 6.

price. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, past performance and price are also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Government intends to make an award to that quoter whose quotation provides the best overall value to the Government.

The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractor, in relation to the needs of the project, as set forth in the solicitation. The merits of each quotation will be evaluated carefully. Each quotation must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements of the solicitation. Quoter must submit information sufficient to evaluate their quotations, based on the detailed factors listed below for the PWS and each of the Sample Task Orders.

Factor 1: Technical Capabilities – ability to fulfill the requirements delineated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) (Attachment 1). The quotation will be evaluated on:

• The appropriateness and adequacy of the approaches and strategies proposed for all activities in the PWS.

• An identification of problems that could be encountered when performing the activities as outlined in the PWS and the proposed solutions for resolving them.

Factor 2: Management Experience - ability to administer a complex, health and safety-based disaster response program. The quotation will be evaluated on:

• Management experience of the Project Director

• Proposed Supervision and coordination of team members for assignment execution

• Demonstrated knowledge and experience of key project personnel with union-sponsored and joint labor/management safety & health worker training programs and technical support capabilities related to worker health and safety disaster response and training

• Fostering a proactive, innovative, and adaptable environment

• Adherence to the principles of project management with regard to project planning and budgeting

• Providing guidance, insight, and support to staff in problem solving

• Incorporation of quality assurance as an integral part of deliverables

• Support of a strong working relationship with the contracting organization

• Proactively anticipating project needs and seeking solutions to problems encountered

• Integration of knowledge across interrelated activities

• Compliance and adherence to HHS, NIH, and NIEHS policies and procedures as applicable

Factor 3: Personnel Experience - appropriateness and adequacy of the key personnel and the scientific and technical expertise and knowledge of staff in:

• Demonstrated technical expertise and specific experience in administering activities within a disaster response program

• Ability to access relevant labor-related/occupational safety and health resources for disaster response activities

• Information and technical support capabilities related to worker health and safety disaster response and training (hazardous waste removal, containment, and remediation; biosafety response and cleanup; and emergency response)

• Subject matter expertise related to worker health and safety disaster response and training (industrial hygienist, occupational safety and health, disaster response, training curricula development, chemical response training, radiological response training, infectious disease training, etc.)

• Science writing and content development expertise related to disaster response

• Disaster response and training communication, dissemination, and translation

• Information collection, synthesis, inventory, dissemination, and data analysis activities

• Meeting organization, planning, and execution of face-to face meetings, teleconferences, and web seminars

Factor 4: Facilities and Equipment - the appropriateness and adequacy of:

• Facilities and equipment of the contractor

• The ability to acquire appropriate security clearances and badging for the contractors requiring GFE, and the appropriate hardware/software for those contractors accessing NIEHS systems that do not require GFE.

• Knowledge of NIEHS IT security requirements and a commitment to provide and implement the appropriate IT Security Plan to assure safety of NIEHS systems.

• Proposed communication tools/resources to promote interactions among staff.

Scoring Adjectives

The following adjectives will be used as general guidance in assessing each technical criterion and the technical quotation as a whole:

Ratings Description

Outstanding

An “Outstanding” rating indicates that the Quoter has very significantly exceeded most or all solicitation requirements. Response exceeds a “Better"” rating. Quotation meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Better

A “Better” rating indicates that the Quoter has fully met all solicitation requirements and significantly exceeds many of the solicitation requirements. Response exceeds an "Acceptable" rating. Quotation meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Quotation contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

An “Acceptable” rating indicates that the Quoter meets all solicitation requirements. Response meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

A “Marginal” rating indicates that the Quoter’s response minimally meets many of the solicitation requirements. Quotation does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The Quotation has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

An “Unacceptable” rating indicates that the evaluation solution quotation has one or more deficiencies and/or gross omissions: Quotation does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Quotation is unawardable.

NOTE: A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each factor. Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award. The Government will not make an award to any Quoter with an unacceptable rating or a deficiency in ANY factor or sub factor.

Factor 5 - Past Performance

The Government will assess the Quoter’s recent and relevant past experience and performance as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the likelihood of the Quoter to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three years from the RFQ release date; relevant in terms of size, scope, and complexity. The submission will be evaluated on the following:

Relevancy of information provided and obtained from references provided by the Quoter, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the quoter concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts, as well as corrective action taken.

Relevancy of past performance to the SOW in quality of services; timeliness of performance and record of meeting schedules; ability to understand and resolve deficiencies in a timely manner with no adverse impact on the mission, general responsiveness to contract requirements and to technical direction; and, customer satisfaction.

Ratings Description

No Rating A “No Rating” rating indicates the Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information of past performance is not available;

the Quoter will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably.

Outstanding An “Outstanding” rating indicates that no risk is anticipated with delivery of quality product, on time, or of any degradation of performance or lack of customer satisfaction based upon Quoter’s past performance.

Better

A “Better” rating indicates the quotation meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Quotation contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low based upon Quoter’s past performance.

Acceptable

An “Acceptable” rating indicates that there is some potential risk anticipated with delivery of quality product, on time, and of degradation or lack of customer satisfaction based upon Quoter’s past performance.

Marginal

A “Marginal” rating indicates that there is significant potential risk anticipated with delivery of quality product, on time, and of degradation of performance based on the Quoter’s past performance. (A rating of marginal does not by itself make the quotation ineligible for award).

Unacceptable

An “Unacceptable” rating indicates that serious doubt exists based on the Quoter’s performance record that the vendor can perform the contract.

Factor 6 - Price

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate the total price of Sample Task Order and the Pricing Fully Loaded Rates by Position to determine if the Quoters price is fair and reasonable utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR Part 13. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106.