FAR 52.212-2 Hybrid Meeting Evaluation Criteria.pdf

TITLE: Hybrid Meeting/Event Training/Consultation Technical Evaluation Criteria

FAR provision 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items applies to this acquisition and the specific evaluation criteria to be included in paragraph (a) of that provision are as follows:

The Government will award a contract resulting from this requirement on the basis of best value, technical factors and price considered. Technical factors together shall be considered more important than price and all technical evaluation factors are detailed below: The proposal should be no longer than 5 pages, excluding key personnel resume(s)/curriculum vitae.

Factor 1: Technical Approach (30 Points)

The Contractor shall be evaluated for understanding of the requirements in accomplishing the statement of work. The offeror’s technical approach shall indicate compliance with the requirements as outlined in the statement of work.

Factor 2: Key Personnel (30 Points)

The Contractor shall provide key personnel that are able to provide the following document experience, educational background and training, and availability of the proposed staff and their designated responsibility on the project. This includes the education, experience, managerial competence and time commitment of the proposed project manager and the experience, technical competence, and time commitment of other staff; staff expertise in travel logistics.

Factor 3: Past Performance (40 Points)

The Contractor shall provide a list of three (3) past performance references performed during the past three (3) years, similar in size and scope to the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work. Contractors shall include the following information for each contract identified:

a) Name of Organization

b) Description of Contractor’s Responsibilities as they relate to this SOW

c) Contract Period of Performance

d) Contact Name and Title

e) Telephone Number

f) E-mail Address

g) Contact Name, Title, and Telephone Number

Past Performance shall be evaluated for relevance to the current requirement.

Documented successful past performance reflecting knowledge of NIH policies and programs, meeting planning experience, and expertise in travel support.

Technical proposals will be evaluated using a summary adjectival rating in accordance with the following scale:

Excellent (90 – 100)

Very Good (80 – 89) Good (70 – 79) Fair (60 – 69) Poor (0 – 59)

Excellent The proposal 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 proposal 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

Very Good The proposal 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 proposal 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

Good The proposal 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 proposal 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.

Fair The proposal 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 proposal 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

Poor

The proposal 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 proposal 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