Evaluation Criteria and Rating Addendum.pdf

pg. 1

Addendum A

Evaluation Criteria (eFiling/Court Management System)

BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be based on a best value determination. 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:

1. Technical and Implementation

2. Past Performance

3. Price/Cost

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

CRITERIA I: TECHNICAL

Offerors shall submit a technical approach addressing the following requirements with a description of the services they would provide that demonstrate they clearly understand the Statement of Work, providing evidence that the organization has current capabilities, and for assuring performance of this requirement.

• Requirement #1: eFiling

• Requirement #2: Docket/Case Creation

• Requirement #3: Court Docket/Case and Notation Voting Management

• Requirement #4: Meeting/Hearing and Activity Management

• Requirement #5: Data/Record and Document Migration

• Requirement #6: License Renewals & Software Upgrade Support

• Requirement #7: Database Administration & Training

• Requirement #8: Help desk & Technical Support

• Requirement #9: Providing System Enhancements

• Requirement #10: Providing Secure Hosting Environment

Offeror shall provide resumes of the Key Personnel at the time of submission of quote. The government reserves the right to contact references included on resumes submitted in response to this RFQ.

CRITERIA II: PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall provide past performance on three (3) federal government agencies or other commercial business for which it has provided similar services within the past five (5) years. Offeror shall provide, for each reference, the following:

- Award Number (i.e. contract or task order number)

- Dollar value of contract

- Period of performance

- Email address and phone number

In evaluating past performance, the Government will consider information obtained from past and

pg. 2 present customers. By past performance, the Government means the offeror’s record of conformity to specifications and to standards of quality of service and timeliness of performance. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) may be used to evaluate past performance.

CRITERIA III: PRICE/COST

Price/cost, while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful Offeror for award of the contract contemplated by this solicitation.

However, cost/price may become a critical factor if two or more offerors are determined to be essentially equal following the evaluation of all factors other than cost or price. In any event the Government reserves the right to make an award to the offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

1 | P a g e

pg. 3

Technical Rating Definitions Exceptional Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains at least one significant strength and no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses; only minor, correctable weaknesses exist.

Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has a probability of success;

contains no significant weaknesses; any weaknesses can be readily corrected.

Marginal Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; has a probability of success; major weaknesses and or significant deficiencies exist.

Unacceptable Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

Past Performance

Neutral A “Neutral” rating indicates a Vendor without a record of past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available.

Unacceptable The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Vendor’s performance record, as applicable, suggests a high degree of risk.

Acceptable The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the government may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Vendor’s past performance record reflects minimal prior experience and suggests some risk.

Very Good The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the government may expect highly satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with minimal risk.

Outstanding The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the government can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with very low risk. Vendor has past experience supporting a federal government agency.