Evaluation Criteria - CATHOLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PASTORAL LIFE COORDINATOR.docx

W9124G26QA001

12 JANUARY 2026

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Basis for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

This Request for Quote (RFQ) is for Catholic Administrative Pastoral Life Coordinator at Fort Rucker, AL.

A. Source Selection Methodology: Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 13.106-2. This is a LPTA source selection. By submission of its quote, the Contractor accepts all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All acceptable quotes, with acceptable past performance, shall be treated equally except for their prices. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. Contractors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Any proposal with an unacceptable technical rating will not receive further evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. By submission of its offer, the Quoter accedes to all RFQ requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

B. Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate the proposal. Award will be made to the Quoter whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 – Technical Proposal (Volume I) Subfactor 1.A – Staffing Subfactor 1.B – Program Management Subfactor 1.C – Quality Control Factor 2 – Past Performance Proposal (Volume II) Factor 3 – Price Proposal (Volume III)

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. Volume I, Factor 1 - Technical Factor

Technical Acceptability Factor. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. Each sub-factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any sub-factor that receives unacceptable rating will result in an overall unacceptable rating in the evaluation for the technical factor and are not eligible for award. The Quoter’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Detailed preparation instructions are included in Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Quoter’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined

Note: A final rating of Unacceptable is ineligible for award.

Technical Proposal. Evaluation of the Technical Capability evaluation factor provides an assessment of the Quoter’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. To receive an acceptable rating for Technical Capability the offer must receive an acceptable rating for each subfactor identified below.

(a) Subfactor 1.A: Staffing. This subfactor evaluates the Quoter’s specific resources that will be used to satisfy the PWS requirements. The Quoter shall provide the following information:

· Element 1.A.1 – Qualification of Personnel Proposed.

· Element 1.A.2 – Plan to Backfill or Replace Personnel as needed.

The Quoter shall describe project management approach, methodology, plan, organization and process for the development and implementation of MVISC Support; address the approach for providing accurate and timely schedules and performance of utilizing the Visual Information Ordering Site (VIOS) to provide DA Photos, Head & Shoulder Photos, Command Photos, and Loan & Issue of portable sound equipment, utilizing throughout the life cycle of the project.

(b) Subfactor 1.B: Project Management. This subfactor evaluates the Quoter’s proposed staffing approach to ensure adequacy and sufficiency of the labor hours and skill mix for performing PWS requirements. The Quoter shall provide a Management Plan that describes its approach/process to ensure the employment of qualified personnel as necessary for functional continuity. The Quoter shall provide the following information:

· Element 1.B.1 – Management Plan for Deliverables.

· Element 1.B.2 – Communication Plan.

The Management Plan shall detail and demonstrate the following:

· An assessment of the Quoter’s staffing plan to determine if the Quoter has adequately justified/explained, both quantitatively and qualitatively, how the proposed staffing plan was derived and how the staffing plan will be successful in the performance of contract requirements. The evaluation will include an assessment of the labor/manpower mix to ensure that it provides adequate staffing to support the work required in the PWS.

· An assessment of whether the Quoter’s staffing plan adequately describes the measures and procedures that will be in place to ensure personnel retention, emphasizing how the Quoter will recruit, retain, and replenish sufficient and qualified personnel throughout the contract period. To determine exactly how the Quoter will respond to attrition and/or separation so as to minimize any impact to contract performance. To determine whether the Quoter’s proposed management and organization structure illustrates clear lines of communication, authority, and relationship between corporate and on-site management.

· An assessment of whether the Quoter has identified any subcontracting efforts and has complied with FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting.

· An assessment of the Quoter’s proposed key personnel’s resumes content inclusion of job description, education, experience, certifications, and qualifications that meet or exceed the PWS requirements and whether the Quoter provided commitment letters for all proposed key personnel.

(c) Subfactor 1.C: Quality Control. The Quoter shall provide a Quality Control Plan that demonstrates that the Quoter has a comprehensive and viable method to develop qualitative and quantitative metrics (collection and reporting). The Quoter’s Quality Control Plan shall detail and demonstrate the following:

· Quoter’s proposed systems to be used for continuous process improvement (Stating International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification or stating the use of ISO standards and principles shall not be sufficient).

· Quoter’s proposed contingency plan which demonstrates that the Quoter has a comprehensive and viable plan to respond to emergency services, and short notice adjustments in accordance with the requirements of the PWS.

· Proposed inspection techniques to provide an effective measure of contract performance for each major functional area, including identification of deficiencies and corrective action/control procedures.

· Proposed procedures to correct deficient performance quickly, the minimum/maximum response times for correcting deficiencies, and the efforts to be taken to preclude reoccurrence.

· Proposed methodology used to receive and address customer complaints, and proposed formal and informal methodology of interface, communications and exchange of relevant information.

B. Volume II, Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor

Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with a Contractor's likelihood of success in performing the PWS requirements as indicated by that contractor's record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the contractor's recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Contractors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the contractor's quote and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with Technical Managers and Contracting Officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

· Business Relations

· Quality of Service

· Schedule

· Customer Satisfaction

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the contractor's (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the quoter, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the quote and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Contractors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral" rating for the Past Performance factor.

C. Volume III, Factor 3 - Price Evaluation Factor.

Price Evaluation Factor. The quoter shall provide prices as identified in Section B. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating; however, proposed prices evaluated as unbalanced may be grounds for eliminating a quote from competition either on the basis that the quoter does not understand the requirement or the quoter has submitted an unbalanced quote. Price will be evaluated to determine if the quoter's proposed price is fair, reasonable, and balanced utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR 15.404-1(2).

Options. The Government will evaluate quotes for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an quote is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six (6) months of the quoter's final option period price to the quoter's total price. Quoters are required only to price the base, optional quantities and option periods. Quoters shall not submit a price for the potential six month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period.

The government shall conduct a Total Evaluated Price evaluation of all acceptable offers using a table and process similar to the example provided below (all example prices are arbitrary):

EXAMPLE ONLY:

Line Item

Line Item

Line Item

Line Item

Line Item

Line Item

Total

Grand Total for Base plus four Option Years

$100,000

Half of Opt Yr IV

(End of Section)