Attachment 6 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

ATTACHMENT 6 – Evaluation Criteria Solicitation No: 1240BH26R0001

Project Name: Emigrant Creek RD Range Fence

Rev. 11/5/25

Comparative Analysis Evaluation Criteria

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(s) representing the best value to the Government.

Technical Response Instructions

The technical response will be used to make an evaluation and arrive at a determination as to whether the response will meet the requirements of the Government. Therefore, the technical response must present sufficient information to reflect a thorough understanding of the requirements and a detailed description of techniques, procedures and program for achieving the objectives of the specifications/statement of work. At a minimum the technical response should clearly address the following:

FACTOR 1 PAST PERFORMANCE: Submit a list of relevant prior work the contractor has performed within the past three (3) years along with contact information so the government may contact prior customers to evaluate past performance. If you will be utilizing subcontractor(s), provide the same information as noted above. Information should include the project name, location, description of the work, dollar value and name/phone/email of project owner representative. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to assess the degree of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The evaluation will consider recency, relevancy and quality. Sources may include CPARS, past performance questionnaires, and other verifiable references. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the offeror. Attachment 14 to this solicitation is a Past Performance Form that is optional for use.

FACTOR 2 EXPERIENCE: Submit a short narrative providing details of the experience the firm has (either as a prime or sub-contractor) for work similar in nature and scope in geographical conditions similar to this requirement regarding the installation of barbed wire fences. Include experience in remote location, similar terrain and soil type; similar logistical challenges for transporting equipment and materials, care and feeding of crew, etc.

FACTOR 3 TECHNICAL APPROACH TO PERFORMING THE WORK: At a minimum, describe your planned approach to performing this work to include planned project management and anticipated schedule of work along with milestones

ATTACHMENT 6 – Evaluation Criteria Solicitation No: 1240BH26R0001

Project Name: Emigrant Creek RD Range Fence

Rev. 11/5/25

FACTOR 4 PRICE: Submit a completed Attachment 2 – Schedule of Items with all items priced. Please double check math to make sure the total for each line item is calculated correctly and the sum of all line items is equal to the total price of the base item and option item on the schedule.

The following Confidence Rating Table will be used in evaluation Offeror’s responses to the Technical Evaluation Factors listed above.

Confidence Rating

Definition

High Confidence (Low Risk)

The government has high confidence that 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 that the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach and will be successful in the performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence (High Risk)

The Government has low confidence that the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach or will be successful in the performing the contract even with some Government intervention.

Evaluation Method

The Government intends to evaluate quotations using a comparative evaluation methodology.

This means quotations will be compared against one another to determine which provides the best value to the Government, based on the evaluation factors outlined in this solicitation.

The Government may consider quotations that exceed minimum requirements and offer additional value or benefits, even if they are not the lowest priced. However, formal tradeoff procedures will not be conducted.