D-Attachment-Evaluation Factors.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

GENERAL

Selection of an offeror for contract award will be based on an evaluation of quotes against three factors. The factors in order of importance are: technical, past performance, and price. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, past performance and price are also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Government intends to make an award to that offeror whose quote provides the best overall value to the Government.

The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the offerors in relation to the needs of the requirements as set forth in the solicitation. The merits of each quote will be evaluated carefully. Each quote must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements of the solicitation. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their quotes based on the detailed factors listed below.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation factors are used by the technical evaluation panel when reviewing the technical quotes. The factors below are listed in the order of relative importance for evaluation purposes.

FACTOR A: Technical Capabilities

The Offeror’s proposed approach will be evaluated to ensure the provision of high-quality services as detailed in the Statement of Work. The proposed technical approach will be evaluated to determine whether the approach will meet or exceed requirements of the Statement of Work, demonstrating a full understanding of the goals, expectations, and technical/managerial aspects of this requirement.

The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated to determine its realism, efficiency, effectiveness, consistency and completeness in addressing all the requirements contained in the Statement of Work.

FACTOR B: Personnel Qualifications (Resumes)

Offerors will be evaluated on the specific and specialized relevant experience, knowledge, skills, abilities, and capacity of proposed personnel that will provide the services described in the SOW. Resumes of all personnel proposed must be provided and must demonstrate an ability to meet the requirements in the SOW.

The following ratings will be used in the evaluation of the Technical quote:

Excellent – The quote has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes several advantageous characteristics of substance, and very few disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the quote provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

Good – The quote demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the quote contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

Acceptable – The quote demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the quote solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect moderate risk in that they may be somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and/or demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Neutral

Marginal – The quote demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages present a low or questionable likelihood of resulting in satisfactory performance.

The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the quote contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and/or do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

Unacceptable – The quote demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has several disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are outweighed by disadvantages.

Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are unlikely to result in satisfactory performance.

The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the quote contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions may also be considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision. Risk Level: Very High

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Offerors' past performance information will be evaluated subsequent to the technical evaluation.

However, this evaluation will not be conducted on any offeror whose quote is rated Marginal or Unacceptable.

The evaluation will be based on information obtained from the past performance quote provided by the offeror, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

The government will assess the relative risks associated with each offeror. Performance risks are those associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the acquisition requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance.

The assessment of performance risk is not intended to be a product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror's performance on a list of contracts but rather the product of subjective judgment by the Government after it considers relevant information.

When assessing performance risks, the Government will focus on the past performance of the offeror as it relates to all acquisition requirements, such as the offeror's record of performing according to specifications, including standards of good workmanship; the offeror's record of controlling and forecasting costs; the offeror's adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror's reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the offeror's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror's performance.

The lack of a relevant performance record may result in an unknown performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage nor disadvantage of the offeror.

The following rating method shall be used in the evaluation of past performance information:

Excellent – Based on the offeror's performance record, no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information are consistently firm in stating that the offeror's performance was superior and that they would unhesitatingly do business with the offeror again.

Good – Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information state that the offeror's performance was good, better than average, etc., and that they would do business with the offeror again.

None – No past performance history identifiable.

Marginal – Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information make unfavorable reports about the offeror's performance and express concern about doing business with the offeror again.

Poor – Based on the offeror's performance record, serious doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information consistently stated that the offeror's performance was entirely unsatisfactory and that they would not do business with the offeror again.

PRICE EVALUATION

The Offeror(s) price quote will be evaluated for reasonableness and best value to the government. 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.