CNS-CNCS-26-0151 Eval Criteria.pdf

NCCC HQ

Aurora Field Office

Master Blanket Purchase Agreement

Government Vehicle Operator Evaluations for NCCC Volunteers Evaluation Criteria and Associated Instructions

May 1, 2026

The Government will award a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) resulting from the solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation that will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

All proposals shall use 12-point font in either: Arial, Calibri or Times New Roman fonts, except charts, tables and diagrams which are permitted to use no less than 9-point fonts. Page limits are listed with each Volume and are not-to-exceed; each volume must be submitted as separate files in Adobe PDF format unless specified otherwise.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors listed below using the adjectival rating system. The relative importance of the non-price/cost factors is as follows: Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2; Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3.

Within each Factor, Elements are equally important. When combined, all non-price/cost factors are significantly more important than cost/price.

Technical Factors - Adjectival Scale The Government will evaluate the technical proposal in accordance with the following adjectival scale:

Adjectival Rating Description

Exceptional Meets all and exceeds many minimum requirements of the criteria;

demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the requirement; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good

Meets all and exceeds some of the minimum requirements of the criteria;

demonstrates a good understanding of the requirement; contains no significant weaknesses nor deficiencies and any weaknesses are correctable or able to be mitigated through discussions.

Acceptable

Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the requirement; no significant weaknesses nor deficiencies, and most weaknesses are correctable or able to be mitigated through discussions.

Marginal

Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria;

demonstrates a marginal understanding of the requirement; many weaknesses would be difficult to correct, even through discussions; no deficiencies.

Unacceptable Fails to meet many of the minimum requirements of the criteria;

demonstrates a misunderstanding of the requirement; many weaknesses and at least one (1) deficiency; proposal needs major revisions.

Technical Factors Factor 1: Specific Tasks INSTRUCTIONS: The Offeror’s proposal shall address AmeriCorps NCCC’s Statement of Work (SOW) Part 4 requirements in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirement and the expertise required for successfully meeting the requirements.

CRITERIA: The Government will evaluate the technical understanding, approach and capabilities in meeting solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the manner and extent to which the proposal responds with methods and processes that demonstrate creativity, feasibility, completeness, and effectiveness in conducting vehicle operator evaluations.

Factor 2: Staffing Approach, Key Personnel Qualifications INSTRUCTIONS: The Offeror’s proposal shall detail its capability to continuously provide staff possessing the skills and certifications in support of this solicitation and how the proposed labor would meet the requirements stated in the solicitation. The Offeror’s proposal shall include resumes and/or curriculum vitae for proposed key personnel. Resumes shall not exceed three pages.

CRITERIA: Education and Experience - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed key personnel to determine if their qualifications, education, knowledge, skills, and areas of expertise are sufficient to successfully complete all requirements.

Factor 3: Past Performance Past Performance Factor - Adjectival Scale The Government will evaluate past performance in accordance with the following adjectival scale:

Adjectival Rating Description

Satisfactory (S) 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.

The Contractor shall provide a Past Performance Volume that shall contain information on two

(2) contract awards or purchase orders awarded within the past five (5) years, similar in size and scope to this solicitation. Experience must be specific to the elements of this solicitation and shall include the following information for each contract or purchase order listed:

a. Name of Contracting Organization

b. Total Contract Value

c. Description of Requirement and Specific Responsibilities of the Offeror as they relate to the requirement

d. Contract Period of Performance

e. Contracting Organization POC’s Contact Information (email and phone number). POCs will be contacted, and their input will be considered in the assessment of past performance.

This factor will address the corporate capabilities of the Contractor in requirements similar to the SOW and with similar clients. Corporate experience with the public (e.g., Federal, state, local governments) and non-profit sectors (e.g., foundations) should be described. Bidders will describe corporate business processes and systems that demonstrate the company’s ability to provide quality products and services in support of the agency’s mission. Bidders will demonstrate experience successfully executing projects of similar size and scope.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Past and Present Performance Information (PPI): Submission of PPI references should be limited to active or completed contracts (either Government or commercial), and that Offerors consider relevant to performance of this solicitation’s requirement. Each submitted contract must meet the Recency and Relevancy requirements defined below.

Recent Contracts: The Government will only consider past performance contract references where the effort’s period of performance has been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation, and that include at least 12 months of performance. If the ordering period on an Ordering type contract has expired but the performance period on a Call/Delivery Order/Task Order is still ongoing or within the above dates, the performance of the Call/Order will be considered within the recency parameters.

Relevant Contracts: Relevant performance is defined as efforts involving a similar scope and breadth as this solicitation requires, as described in the SOW and these instructions and evaluation criteria.

If the contract being submitted is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, an IDIQ “D” type contract per FAR Subpart 16.5, Indefinite-Delivery Contracts), performance is demonstrated at the order level; i.e. a Call/Delivery Order (DO)/Task Order (TO). Therefore, the Offeror shall submit information submitted for each call/order or series of orders for evaluation, not the basic ordering contract itself.

A contract reference will only be evaluated if:

The Contractor with the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code/Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) identified on the contract reference is the same as the Offeror (prime contractor).

If the Contractor is a part of the Offeror (prime contractor) as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason, the Offeror must provide written explanation demonstrating that the organizational entity who performed the work in the contract reference is currently a part of the Offeror, or If submitted, the contract reference from a major subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s effort must include a description of the role, and percentage of work the major subcontractor or teaming partners will fulfill on this solicitation and how the past performance relates to that role.

Specific Content:

The Offeror may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk.

Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a lower Past Performance Evaluation Rating since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered.

The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems, such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc. If the CPAR clearly addresses the Offeror’s response to performance issues documented in the CPAR, no further explanation is necessary.

Provide, as applicable, an explanation of any corporate, acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason the Offeror’s (prime contractor) organizational entity who performed the work in the contract reference is currently a part of the Offeror.

CRITERIA:

General: The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and if applicable, the major subcontractor(s) demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the Contractor’s performance will be considered. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the Offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the Offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government employs several approaches, including:

Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(2)(ii), Proposal Evaluation, the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance volume. Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contract Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror and/or major subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), the overall work record and the extent to which small business goals were met or not met. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering-type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, IAW the solicitation instructions, if the contract being submitted is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR Subpart 16.5, Indefinite-Delivery Contracts), the Offeror should also have submitted an individual call/delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government will use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) under one Ordering Contract to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and performance acceptability for that Ordering

Contract.

Recency: The Government will only consider past performance contract references where the effort’s period of performance has been performed during the past five (5) from the date of issuance of this solicitation, and that include at least 12 months of performance. Contracts that do not meet the recency criteria will not be evaluated. If the ordering period on an Ordering type contract has expired but the performance period on a Call/Delivery Order/Task Order is still ongoing or within the above dates, the performance of the Call/Order will be considered within the recency parameters.

Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the submitted contracts that have been determined to meet the recency criteria. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each contract, or group of orders:

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope this solicitation requires, as described in the SOW and the Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope this solicitation requires.

CRITERIA: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance information for relevance to the SOW requirements and be rated according to the Past Performance Factor Adjectival Scale. If the Offeror does not provide past performance information, the Offeror shall be rated neutral.

Cost/Price Evaluation (5-page limit) INSTRUCTIONS: The Offeror’s proposal shall include a completed price sheet. The Offeror shall submit the Firm Fixed Price cost proposal for all items and/or services required in the solicitation in accordance with the sample staffing rate. All Contractors must also submit their fully burdened GSA rates, with appropriate crosswalks where applicable, for all possible labor categories appropriate and valuable to the life of the Master BPA and its subsequent calls.

CRITERIA: The Government will evaluate the Offeror(s) cost/price proposed rates for reasonableness. 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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404 and FAR 52.217-8.