Attachment 6 - Proposed Evaluation Criteria.pdf
PDF 153 KB Posted
- Attached to
- USDA Forest Service Law Enforcement & Investigation R13 Z5 Vehicle Upfit EN 5302, 5363, 5233, 5207, 5319
- Solicitation number
- 12318725Q171
- Issued by
-
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
About this file
This document is an Evaluation Factors/Criteria file for a USDA Forest Service solicitation for vehicle upfitting services. The evaluation will be based on two primary factors: Technical Proposal (comprising Past Performance and Technical Capability) and Price. For Past Performance, vendors will be rated as Acceptable (low performance risk), Neutral (lack of verifiable references), or Unacceptable (historical performance failures). Technical Capability will be evaluated as Acceptable (meets requirements with low risk) or Unacceptable (fails to meet requirements with high risk). Vendors must complete a Schedule of Items with firm fixed pricing that includes pickup and delivery of vehicles. The award will be made to the vendor demonstrating the best combination of past performance, technical capability, and pricing, capable of successfully fulfilling the government's requirements.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
EVALUATION
FACTORS/CRITERIA
Evaluation Factors The submission will be evaluated based on list below:
Factor 1: Technical Proposal I. Past Performance
II. Technical Capability Factor 2: Price
Evaluation Criteria
ADJECTIVAL RATINGS
The following adjectival rating tables shall be used to rate proposals. The evaluator will use the appropriate table and select one of the adjectival ratings that most clearly reflect the assessment of the proposal’s based on the established evaluation criteria.
Factor 1: Technical Proposal
I. Past Performance
ACCEPTABLE (A)
The past performance record represents that the Offeror is capable of adequately performing the requirement. This rating indicates a low level of performance risk to the Government.
NEUTRAL (N)
Indicates that the Offerors references could not be verified or that the Offeror lacks relevant past performance experience.
UNACCEPTABLE (U)
Indicates that the Offeror has historically failed to perform in a satisfactory manner in the fulfillment of like or similar requirements. This rating indicates an unacceptable level of performance risk.
II. Technical Capability
ACCEPTABLE (A)
The proposal meets the stated requirements. The response is considered complete in terms of the basic content and level of information the Government seeks for evaluation. There is a reasonable probability of success to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements and little risk that this Offeror would fail.
There are no deficiencies, and minor weaknesses. Minor weaknesses need not be corrected to make award.
UNACCEPTABLE (U)
The proposal fails to meet the stated requirements. The response is considered deficient in terms of basic content and support the Government seeks for evaluation. The degree of risk is so high that there is little or no likelihood of success. Deficiencies are so major or extensive that a major revision or complete rewrite of the proposal would be necessary.
Factor 2 – Price
All vendors shall complete the table in FS Schedule of Items (Schedule of Items) with their offered prices. Vendor should submit quote with Firm Fixed Pricing to include pickup from and delivery back to the specified locations listed.
Award will be made to the vendor that is capable of successfully fulfilling requirements to the Government’s approval and acceptance; and its evaluation of Past Performance, Technical Capability, and Price based on the criteria listed above.
| EVALUATION FACTORS/CRITERIA |
| Evaluation Factors |
| Evaluation Criteria ADJECTIVAL RATINGS |
| Factor 1: Technical Proposal |
| I. Past Performance ACCEPTABLE (A) |
| NEUTRAL (N) |
| UNACCEPTABLE (U) |
| II. Technical Capability ACCEPTABLE (A) |
UNACCEPTABLE (U)
Factor 2 – Price
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .