Evaluation Best Value.doc

VIV.

EVALUATIONS

1. Evaluation System The evaluation criteria of the solicitation will be evaluated and rated by the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) using the adjectival ratings below. The TEB members will independently complete an assessment of each offeror’s proposal and assign a rating to each criteria and sub-criteria evaluated. The TEB will discuss individual ratings and develop a consensus rating as described below for each of the required evaluation areas. When consensus ratings are completed, the TEB will provide an evaluation summary memorandum to the contracting officer stating each contractor’s rating and the reasoning behind these ratings. These ratings will be done without knowledge of pricing.

(E) Exceptional- The proposal is very comprehensive, providing in-depth, clear, and uniformly outstanding quality. Consistently high-quality performance can be anticipated from the offeror. The proposal, as written, exceeds the requirement and no unacceptable items are identified.

(A) Acceptable/Good - The response meets all minimum requirements and generally is of high quality. Deficiencies are minor and easily corrected. Proposal is acceptable as written. Satisfactory performance can be expected.

(M) Marginal - The proposal fails to meet all minimum requirements. The proposal is weak in some areas but may be correctible through discussions.

(U) Unacceptable - The proposal fails to meet minimum requirements. Proposal is lacking minimum technical detail and omissions are apparent. Soundness of technical approach is weak and lacks an understanding of the requirement. Major proposal revision(s) required for minimum acceptability.

2.

INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM OFFERORS (from Solicitation)

1) Offers submitted in response to this solicitation shall include a technical proposal, a price proposal, and contractor representations and certifications.

a) Technical Proposal – The technical proposal shall address the evaluation factors in 52.212-2. At a minimum technical proposal shall include:

· Past Performance & Experience on Similar Projects - Provide a list of completed past projects with similar scope for the last three years, (include a brief description of the project and how it is similar to this one, dollar amount, project location and who the work was performed for). Include reference names and phone numbers for these projects. Offerors without a record of past performance will receive a neutral rating for past performance only. Provide this information for subcontractors on the project as well.

· Technical Approach - Provide a list of all personnel to be used on the project (including sub-contractors on the project) and their qualifications. Provide a description of equipment to be used on the project (make, model, year, etc). This information is used to determine the acceptability of both personnel and equipment and to ascertain your understanding of what resources are needed to adequately complete this project.

· Sustainable Acquisition Plan - Provide a list of green products/supplies that will we used in the performance of this contract. Green product listings can be found on some of the following websites:

Biopreferred Products www.biopreferred.gov Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Alternative Fuels http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ Water Efficient Products www.epa.gov/watersense Energy Efficient Products www.energystar.gov/products Environmentally Preferable Products www.epa.gov/epp 3.

EVALUATION CRITERIA (from Solicitation)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Past Performance & Relevant Experience

2. Available Qualified Personnel

3. Available Equipment

4. Sustainable Acquisition

AWARD DETERMINATION

The Forest Service’s source evaluation will be based on best-value principles. Accordingly, award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal provides the greatest overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. This best-value determination will be accomplished by comparing the value of the differences in the technical factors for competing offers, based on their strengths, weaknesses, and risks, with differences in their price to the Government. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical capabilities than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior technical capabilities. As technical scores become closer, price will become more important. Technical Factors are significantly more important than price.

Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important when compared to price.

Exhibit 15-1.1 - Non-Disclosure Notice

Project Title__________________________ The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1988, as revised by the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, has established restrictions related to procurement integrity. Congress has addressed the ethics and integrity of both Federal and private personnel in setting forth prohibitions against certain practices. These restrictions apply to any person who is a present or former official of the United States, or a person who is acting or has acted for or on behalf of, or who is advising or has advised the United States with respect to, a Federal agency procurement and who by virtue of that office, employment, or relationship has or had access to contractor bid and proposal information or source selection information.

Individuals shall not "knowingly" engage in offers of employment or business opportunity with competing contractors during the conduct of a procurement. Nor shall they offer, give, or make promises related to "money, gratuity, or other thing of value" during the conduct of a procurement. Nor shall they disclose, solicit, or obtain, directly or indirectly, any contractor bid and proposal information, proprietary information or source selection information regarding such procurement prior to the award of a contract.

Source selection information is broadly defined as nonpublic information prepared for use by a federal agency in evaluating a bid or proposal. Source selection information includes the number of proposals, identity of offerors, technical scores, relative position of offerors, content of proposals, content of negotiations, costs, and any discussions related to the award and selection process, whether internal to USDA Forest Service or between USDA Forest Service and one or more offerors.

These prohibitions apply to Federal employees, contractor and subcontractor personnel, consultants, experts, and advisors. Certifications will be required by all participants in the procurement process that the requirements set forth have not been violated. Violators will be liable for contractual penalties and administrative actions as well as civil penalties up to $100,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for corporations and criminal penalties up to five years imprisonment.

You are requested to read and certify to the following:

To the best of my knowledge and belief, no conflict of interest exists that may diminish my capacity to perform an impartial and object review of source selection information, or may otherwise result in a biased opinion or an unfair advantage. If a potential conflict of interest arises on a particular acquisition, I agree to notify the Contracting Officer promptly concerning the potential conflict.

I will not disclose source selection sensitive information to any unauthorized person or use it for personal benefit during or after my employment with the Forest Service. This confidentiality will be maintained even after contract award. Any available information will be released only through the appropriate Contracting Officer.

I certify that if I have any questions regarding contractual or technical clarifications they will be presented in writing to the appropriate Contracting Officer.

Name & Title (Please Print)

Date

Signature

EXHIBIT 15-3.0 – SAMPLE TEB WORKSHEET

Solicitation Number: 12444323Q0037

Offeror Name: Duffy INC Project Name: BPA Bradford District Grading

Contact Name:

Project Location: Allegheny National Forest

Phone Number: ______________________________________

Rate each proposal in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria established in the Solicitation. Identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks for each rating to assist in developing the narrative summary and recommendation for award. Be specific in your narratives.

Factor 1 - Overall Past Performance. & Relevant Experience. Call references.

Factor 2 –Available Qualified Personnel

Factor 3 – Available Equipment

Factor 4 – Sustainable Acquisition

Overall Evaluation. Combined Rating of the four factors above

Ratings:

E = Exceptional

A = Acceptable

M = Marginal

U = Unacceptable Evaluator Name: _____________________________________ Date__________

EXHIBIT 15-3.1 – SAMPLE TEB WORKSHEET SUMMARY

TEB Member:

Offeror Name: Duffy INC.

TEB Member: _______________________________________

Discuss and reach consensus for each offeror.

Consensus

Factor 1 - Overall Past Performance. & Relevant Experience. Call references.

Factor 2 –Available Qualified Personnel

Factor 3 – Available Equipment

Factor 4 – Sustainable Acquisition

Overall Evaluation. Combined Rating of the factors above.

A = Acceptable

M = Marginal

U = Unacceptable

TEB Chairperson: _____________________________________

EXHIBIT 15-3.2 – SAMPLE CONSENSUS WORKSHEET SUMMARY

Project Location: Allegheny National Forest

TEB Member: _______________________________________

Comparison of all consensus ratings developed for all Offerors. Print more pages if needed.

Factor 1 - Overall Past Performance & Relevant Experience. Call references.

Factor 2 –Available Qualified Personnel

Factor 3 – Available Equipment

Factor 4 – Sustainable Acquisition

Overall Evaluation. Combined Rating of the four factors above.

A = Acceptable

M = Marginal

U = Unacceptable TEB Chairperson: _____________________________________

Exhibit 15-4 – Technical Evaluation Report Outline I.

Summary Evaluation Process

A.

Source Selection Team

B.

Offers due 07APR2023 C.

Initial Evaluation – xxxxxx

II.

Evaluation Details

A.

Initial Technical Evaluations – Include narrative details from each proposal. All evaluations must relate back to the solicitation evaluation criteria. (If this information is recorded in detail on the consensus evaluation sheet, it does not have to be included in this document.)

1) Individual

(a) Strengths

(b) Weaknesses

(c) Risks

2) Consensus

(a) Strengths

(b) Weaknesses

(c) Risks

III.

Recommendation – The documentation must clearly show through sufficient detail that the recommendation is not arbitrary.

IV.

Tradeoff Analysis - (This will be done by TEB after evaluations are completed and pricing is revealed) technical/price trade-offs are permitted. The extent one may be sacrificed for the other is governed by the test of rationality and consistency with the solicitation evaluation criteria.

Signature of TEB Chairman

Date