Attachment_III_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Evaluation Criteria – Hydroponic Gardening Program

15BNAS23Q00000072

Decisional Rule Criteria ‐ Best Value Trade Off

The quoter’s quotation will be evaluated in four areas: Technical, Experience, Past Performance and Price. Technical areas are more important than Experience and Past Performance, which in turn is more important than Price. Quoters should recognize that Price, although of lesser importance than Experience, Technical and Past Performance, might contribute substantially to the Source Selection Authority’s (SSA’s) contract award decision. As the evaluation of competing quotations in the Technical, Experience, and Past Performance areas become more equal in rating, the more important Price shall become in selecting the best value for the Government. Experience, Technical and Past Performance areas shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 13.106‐2(b)(3), Evaluation of Quotations or Offers.”

Evaluations will be rated under the following technical/risk rating matrix for Best‐Value Trade Off decisional rule criteria.

MISSION CAPABILITY COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS ‐ TRADEOFF

Rating Description

Outstanding – 4 Points Proposal/Quote indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good – 3 Points Proposal/Quote indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable – 2 Points Proposal/Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal – 1 Point Proposal/Quote has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable – 0 Points Proposal/Quote does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

The quoter’s quotation shall clearly demonstrate, at the time of submission, unless otherwise stated, the capability to meet the Decisional Rule criteria. Quotations shall be rated based on the Decisional Rule criteria. Quotations shall clearly demonstrate the capability to meet all the following Decisional Rule criteria:

FACTOR 1 ‐ TECHNICAL APPROACH

The contractor will develop a national hydroponic model for BOP facilities to maintain, install, train staff, and provide curricula nation‐wide.

1. Clearly demonstrate past professional hydroponics equipment installation to include award, installation photos and courses/curricula needed to operate a hydroponic system. The offeror shall provide two examples from recent awards not to exceed five years (2018‐2023).

2. Demonstrate curricula that will address the training needs of staff and students to operate and maintain a fully functional hydroponics system with model options. The offeror shall provide two examples of such created training for review.

3. Demonstrate by providing two examples of delivered training on hydroponics. Offeror shall provide documentation on training provided on a hydroponic model (live/in‐person/virtual or booklet).

FACTOR 2 ‐ EXPERIENCE

1. The offeror must provide documented evidence of expertise in the areas identified in the ‘Deliverables’ section. The documented evidence shall include the agency/department name, dates of service, identified agency/department goals, and how the contractor met those goals.

2. The offeror shall address any instances of past performance problems in the referenced contracts and explain how these problems were resolved.

FACTOR 3 ‐ Past Performance

The offeror will create a set of Bureau professional development courses and requirements for BOP staff instructing classes on hydroponics aligned with the size system available at the institution once determined.

1. The offeror shall clearly identify and provide three examples of a past hydroponic system installation. Examples must include one of each type of system (small, medium, and large).

2. The offer shall provide three examples of a hydroponic system maintenance and service schedule for installed equipment from a past contract.

FACTOR 4 ‐ PRICE

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to an offeror other than the offeror proposing the lowest price when the Government’s evaluation determines a proposal is significantly superior from a non‐price standpoint and warrants payment by the Government of a premium.

Price is defined as the Offeror’s price proposal. The Contracting Officer shall evaluate price independently. The price proposal in Schedule of Items (Attachment I) shall be evaluated on the total cost.

Quotes determined to meet the decisional rule criterion shall be evaluated using the following criteria:

Criteria Weight Technical Approach Best Value Trade‐Off Experience Best Value Trade‐Off Past Performance Best Value Trade‐Off Price Best Value Trade‐Off

DELIVERIES

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505, and the clause located in FAR 52.216‐18, Ordering, states that any supplies or services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of a delivery/task order by a warranted Contracting Officer in the National Acquisitions Section Contracting Office.

AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

Quoters are advised an award may be made without discussions. The Contracting Officer cannot overemphasize the necessity for the initial quotation of a quoter to provide the Government with sufficient information identifying the quoter's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.