Evaluation Factors.pdf
PDF 80 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Repair and reconditioning of 28 each Motor, DC Servo, NWS/ROC PN: 2200220-201, ASN: R400-2A1A1B1
- Solicitation number
- 142082-24-145
About this file
This document is an Evaluation Factors document related to a federal contract opportunity. It outlines the evaluation criteria that will be used to assess quotes submitted in response to Request for Quotation (RFQ) No. 142082-24-145 for the repair and reconditioning of 28 DC servo motors for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS).
The key evaluation factors are Past Performance, Technical Approach, Delivery Terms, and Price. Past Performance will be evaluated based on the offeror's ability to successfully complete similar repair and reconditioning work within the past 3 years. The Technical Approach will be assessed on factors such as the offeror's ability to meet the first article delivery requirement, provide a warranty, demonstrate technical capabilities, and submit a detailed production schedule and plan. Delivery terms and the quoted all-inclusive firm-fixed price will also be evaluated, with faster/earlier delivery being looked upon more favorably. The procurement is set-aside 100% for small businesses under NAICS code 811210.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CAR 1352.209-74.pdf | ||
| NOAA Acquisition Manual for service Solicitation and Contracts.docx | DOCX document | |
| FAR and CAR Provisions attached to service Solicitations.docx | DOCX document | |
| FAR and CAR Clauses attached to servicee Contracts.rtf | RTF text file | |
| FAR Provision 52.222-48.pdf | ||
| Drawing 2200220-K.pdf | ||
| Statement of Work 09-04-24 - DC Servo Motor.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
TRADE OFF EVALUATION SCORING TECHNIQUE
Rating of Offers: Quotes will be adjectivally rated against each of the technical evaluation factors set forth in the RFQ, and shall be given an overall adjectival rating.
The adjectival ratings to be used are:
PAST PERFORMANCE RATING
RATING DESCRIPTION
Outstanding
(9,10) Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant past performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort with quality repairs and timely return of the repaired equipment.
Acceptable (7, 8)
Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable positive expectation that the quoter will successfully perform the required effort.
Marginal (5, 6)
Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a minimum expectation that the quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Unacceptable (4, 3, 2, 1)
Based on the quoter’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a very low expectation that the quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort.
Neutral (0)
No recent/relevant performance record is available or the quoter’s performance record is so sparse that a past performance rating cannot be assigned.
TECHNICAL FACTOR RATINGS
RATING DESCRIPTION
Unsatisfactory The quote does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation or does not address the specific factor. The quoter’s interpretation of the Government's requirements is so superficial, incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, or incorrect as to be unacceptable.
The assignment of a rating of "Unacceptable" indicates that numerous weaknesses exist requiring a major revision, tantamount to a new offer to make acceptable. The quote exhibits no strengths. Project failure is probable.
Satisfactory The quote meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. The quote is compliant and provides assurance that the quoter will successfully accomplish the work. Any weakness is of a minor nature which poses little risk of adversely affecting the quoter’s performance.
A rating of "Satisfactory" is used when there are no indications of strengths, features, or innovations which would enhance the specific requirements or otherwise be of benefit. The quote demonstrates an acceptable probability of successful execution of the work.
Very Good The quote exceeds the requirements of the solicitation, is complete, organized, and detailed, and provides strong assurances that the quoter will successfully accomplish the work. A rating of "Very Good" means that this quote contains strengths, features, or innovations which would enhance the specific requirements or otherwise be of benefit. Any weaknesses are considered to be of such small consequence that their impact on the overall superiority of the quotation is insignificant. A high probability of success is demonstrated.
2. Each rating will be based on facts provided in each quoter’s technical quotation.
Specific narrative comments regarding each quote, both positive and negative, shall be made on individual rating sheets, which will include an assessment of the quoter’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. A final rating is also required.
3. Reviewer recommendation: The reviewer shall make a recommendation of award based on consideration of their strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.
| TRADE OFF EVALUATION SCORING TECHNIQUE |
| Rating of Offers: Quotes will be adjectivally rated against each of the technical evaluation factors set forth in the RFQ, and shall be given an overall adjectival rating. The adjectival ratings to be used are: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .