B04_Tech_Eval_Plan_(TEP).docx
DOCX document 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NATC FY23 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140P5223Q0026
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_140P5223Q0026.pdf | ||
| SOL_Clauses.docx | DOCX document | |
| B03_Wage_Grade_Adams_County.pdf | ||
| FY23_NATC_Grounds_Maint_PWS_updated.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
TECHNICAL EVALUATION PLAN
The Technical Evaluation criteria outlined in this document is derived from the Evaluation Criteria identified in the solicitation and shall not be altered or edited. Evaluators are instructed to complete the Non-Disclosure Agreement and are notified that this evaluation shall be completed based on the information provided in the offeror’s proposal. This evaluation shall be completed without consideration of knowledge of the offeror’s capabilities and experience, outside of the information presented in the offeror’s proposal. Evaluators are notified that disclosure of any of the information associated with Offerors Proposals, evaluation results, or any source selection information is prohibited in accordance with 48 C.F.R. § 3.104-4. This includes: cost or pricing data; indirect costs and direct labor rates; propriety information about manufacturing processes, operations or techniques; information marked by the contractor as “contractor bid or proposal information”; bid/proposal prices; proposed costs or prices from offerors; source selection and technical evaluation plans; technical evaluations, cost or price evaluations, competitive range determinations, rankings of offers; reports of source selection panels; other information marked as “source selection” based on a determination that its disclosure would jeopardize the procurement.
Instructions: Evaluators shall review the offerors’ proposals to determine if the offeror meets the requirements stated the three evaluation factors that make up the evaluation criteria in Section M. Evaluators will use words in a narrative as shown in Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award below to rate each offeror proposal.
EVALUATION STANDARDS:
Rating: The application of a scale of words, colors, or numbers, used in narrative, to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standard for a non-cost factor. For this solicitation, ratings will consist of words in a narrative. Ratings will be applied at the factor level. The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factor A: Experience, Technical Capability and Approach, Factor B: Past Performance, and Factor C: Price.
A. Technical Ratings. The ratings below include the consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in an offeror’s proposal. These shall be used on all technical factors and sufficient documentation supporting these ratings shall be included with the ratings:
Adjectival Rating
Description
| Outstanding |
| Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. |
| Good |
| Proposal 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 |
| Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. |
| Marginal |
| Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal is unawardable without |
discussions.
| Unacceptable |
| Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and thus contains one or more deficiencies, and risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable without discussions. |
B. Past Performance Ratings.
| (i) | Recency: Recency is generally expressed as a time during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. |
| (ii) | Relevance: In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. |
| (iii) | Quality: The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii). The Past Performance Evaluation will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information. |
Factor A – Experience, Technical Capability, and Approach
Evaluation of this factor will be based on the offeror's description of evidence of offeror’s capability to perform the work required. Evidence may include, years of experience, description of same or similar work, and other descriptive literature.
NOTES:
Factor B – Past Performance
Evaluation of this factor will be based on three past performance references submitted by the offerors (company name, email and contact name). The Government may use its own past performance history with the offeror when considering past performance.
Factor C – Price Evaluation of this factor will be based on the reasonableness of the detailed proposal. Cost will be evaluated for reasonableness through a comprehensive comparison of each proposal received. Reasonableness will be determined based on costs submitted by the competition, and current market conditions.
Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .