Attachment_A.pdf

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Risk MAP

Program Management

(PM)

Technical Evaluation Plan

As of 12-20-2012

(Attachment A to Source Selection Plan)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE

Attachment A

Table of Contents

1.0 Purpose of the Technical Evaluation Plan

This Technical Evaluation Plan (Attachment A to the Source Selection Plan) applies to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Risk MAP Program

Management requirement (solicitation number HSFE60-12-R-00001). The Source

Selection Plan lists the responsibilities of the personnel involved in the source selection process. This Technical Evaluation Plan focuses on the Technical Evaluation Panel’s

(TEP’s) responsibilities and explains the process the TEP must use to analyze capability statements and technical proposals, and to prepare reports of its activities.

Role of the TEP

The TEP consists of Risk MAP experts who have the technical knowledge to analyze offerors’ technical submissions and to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and risks or each submission. The TEP reports to the Contracting Officer and ultimately, the Source

Selection Official (SSO) regarding its determination of the offerors’ technical capabilities. Upon request of the Contracting Officer, the TEP may also examine the business proposals (after it has completed its technical evaluation) to evaluate whether the cost or pricing reflects that the offeror understands the scope of work. The

Contracting Officer may also request the TEP to recommend a cost-technical trade-off to arrive at an award.

1.2 Initial Responsibilities of the TEP

The TEP’s responsibilities take precedence over the members’ normal duties. If a supervisor cannot spare a TEP member for the required period – likely to be extensive in a complex procurement – the supervisor should discuss the problem with the SSO and the Contracting Officer as early in the acquisition as possible. Once the

TEP members have started their work, replacement of a TEP member can cause procurement delays and other problems.

Before the TEP convenes, the members must read the Statement of Work (or the performance-based equivalents, the Statement of Objectives or Performance Work

Statement), the sources sought notice, the pricing structure contained in Part B of the solicitation, the instructions to offerors contained in Part L of the solicitation, and the evaluation factors contained in Part M of the solicitation. Additionally, the TEP members must read the full Source Selection Plan, including this Technical

Evaluation Plan.

2.0 The TEP’s Role Regarding Capability Statements

The TEP’s first activity in this procurement will be to analyze the “capability statements” received in response to the sources sought notice. A capability statement allows the TEP to analyze whether a company is likely to have a reasonable chance to receive an award if it were to submit a formal proposal – in other words, whether a proposal is likely to be

“viable”. The process saves companies time and money by giving them the information to decide whether they have a reasonable chance for award. The process also saves the government time and effort by avoiding the necessity to review proposals from companies that forego competing because they know their chances of success are small. .

Additionally, small businesses and niche companies notified that they are unlikely to be viable competitors still have time to seek subcontracts from other prospective prime contract offerors.

2.1 Contents of Capability Statements:

The sources sought notice for this requirement instructs prospective offerors to include in their capability statements:

A description of the Risk MAP program, including its challenges, sufficient to demonstrate the prospective offeror’s understanding of the program;

A brief description of the technical approach that the prospective offeror would use to perform the contract; and

A description (using the matrix set out in an attachment to the sources sought notice) of the company’s experience and of any potential joint venturers and subcontractors that qualify the prospective offeror to perform the Risk MAP program management contract.

2.2 Evaluation Criteria for Capability Statements

The TEP must analyze the capability statements under each of the following criteria to decide whether a technical proposal from a prospective offeror is likely to have a reasonable chance of selection:

The prospective offeror’s understanding of the Risk MAP program, including the program’s challenges;

The prospective offeror’s technical approach to contract performance; and

The prospective offeror’s experience (including that of the prime contractor and potential joint venturers and subcontractors) that qualifies it to perform the Risk MAP program management contract.

2.3 Evaluation Procedures for Capability Statements

A sources sought notice is not a solicitation and a capability statement is not a proposal – capability statements are intended to be short and general, compared to formal technical proposals. A capability statement need only contain sufficient detail for the TEP to conclude that a technical proposal is likely to be viable. It need not lay out the prospective offeror’s entire performance plan, name key employees, include past performance references, or otherwise include information that a TEP would need to determine a proposal’s strengths or weaknesses.

In reviewing capability statements, the TEP must:

Read the capability statements individually and make individual notes regarding the three capability criteria.

Convene as a group and discuss whether, under the three capability criteria, each company is likely to submit a viable technical proposal.

o The TEP need not assign adjectival ratings, but the TEP’s report must make clear whether a full proposal from each prospective offeror is likely to be viable or not.

o For those companies unlikely to be viable competitors, the TEP must document the reasons for its conclusion and any areas of strength in the capability statements.

o If the TEP cannot reach agreement on whether a prospective offeror’s technical proposal is likely to be viable, it must document the disagreement and the bases for that disagreement.

o The technical evaluation report regarding each capability statement need not be complex, as long as the Contracting Officer and the prospective offeror understand the rationale for the TEP’s conclusions.

Each member of the TEP must sign the technical report before the panel chair submits it to the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will notify each company whether a formal proposal is likely to be viable, and, if not, the reasons for the TEP’s conclusion and any strengths that the TEP saw in the company’s capability statement.

3.0 Technical Proposals

An offeror may submit a formal proposal under the Request for Proposals (RFP), regardless of whether the company submitted a capability statement in response to the sources sought notice and regardless of the TEP’s conclusion regarding the proposal’s likely viability.

3.1 Technical Evaluations

The solicitation’s technical evaluation criteria form the basis for the TEP’s evaluation of the initial technical proposal and any proposal revisions. The attached rating sheets, which reproduce the criteria, are the only forms on which the panel members may write notes and record ratings. The individual panel members may use a paper version of the form or a computer version. The TEP should record its consensus ratings and supporting comments only on the computer version.

3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The four (4) technical evaluation factors to be used in the selection of firms are listed below, in descending order of importance.

Factor 5, which applies only to large businesses, will be rated on a pass-fail basis.

A proposal that receives a “fail” score on Factor 5 after discussions (or initially, if no discussions are held) is ineligible for award.

Factor 1. Advancing Program Delivery that Increases Public Awareness and leads to Mitigation Actions, The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s proposed solution supports the Government in advancing the Risk MAP vision and its key program measures. The Government will look at areas that include, but are not limited to, how the Offeror’s proposal will result in delivery of quality products, refine and implement strategies nationally that will provide stakeholders with a clear understanding of risk, promote action to build more resilient communities, and support the Government in strengthening and leveraging beneficial partnerships at the national and regional levels.

Factor 2. Refining and Implementing Comprehensive Program Management that Drives Efficiency and Innovation.

The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s proposed solution supports the

Government in ensuring effective monitoring, control, and management of the

Risk MAP program. The Government will look at areas that include, but are not limited to, how the Offeror’s proposal will implement a comprehensive program management structure; refine that structure; promote and execute efficiencies and innovations to meet stakeholder needs in a resource constrained environment; and result in strategies to promote, coordinate, and collaborate across FEMA to share intelligence from Risk MAP in an effort to build more resilient communities.

Factor 3. Corporate and Staff Capability and Program Knowledge

The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s proposed solution addresses the

Offeror’s program management capability, including, but not limited to, the

Offeror’s proposed methods and techniques to balance the Government’s competing interests and respond to Government requirements; the Offeror’s understanding of the broad program and policy impacts of other FEMA programs on the Risk MAP program; the qualifications, relevant experience, and degree of authority of the Offeror’s proposed Project Director and other Key Personnel; and the Offeror’s proposed staffing plan, including number of personnel, labor categories, and labor mix.

Factor 4. Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance on projects similar in size, scope, contract type, and complexity to Risk MAP. The Government may evaluate prime contractors, joint venturers, and key subcontractors and may consider matters including, but not limited to, the overall success of the offeror’s portion of the project; the offeror’s conformance to contract requirements; the quality of the offeror’s work; the offeror’s adherence to the project schedule; the offeror’s success in managing the budget and controlling costs; the offeror’s client communication; the offeror’s responsiveness to customer concerns; the offeror’s ability to manage its subcontractors and employees; and the offeror’s adherence to any subcontracting plan.

The Government may use all relevant sources of information in evaluating this factor, (e.g., reference checks, FEMA’s own experience, information from external contracting offices, data from government past performance databases, and data from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)). Relevant past performance information may include information regarding federal contracts, contracts with other levels of government, and contracts with private entities.

Contract performance that ended earlier than three years from the date that the current solicitation was issued is not considered relevant.

Factor 5. Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only) – Pass/Fail

The Agency will analyze the extent to which the offeror’s small business subcontracting plan provides for subcontracting with or purchasing supplies from, small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and women-owned small businesses; and ensures timely payment of amounts owed under subcontracts with small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and women-owned small businesses.

3.3 EVALUATION RATINGS:

Ratings focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror's cost/price as demonstrated by its business proposal. Assigned adjectival ratings will reflect the consensus developed by the SEB’s assessment of the proposed approach to accomplishing the Mitigation objectives.

Adjectival Ratings only apply to the technical evaluation factors.

3.4 ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS:

OUTSTANDING

The Evaluation Factor response is expected to contribute to the superior achievement of objectives with minimal or no risk. An OUTSTANDING rating indicated that the proposal/past performance contains significant strengths, few or no minor weaknesses and no deficiencies.

GOOD

The Evaluation Factor response is expected to contribute to the achievement of objectives with, at most, minimum risk. A GOOD rating indicates that the proposal/past performance contains strengths, but potentially may include some weaknesses. The proposal contains no deficiencies.

ACCEPTABLE

The Evaluation Factor response is expected to introduce a moderate risk in achieving objectives. An ACCEPTABLE rating indicates that the proposal/past performance may contain strengths but its weaknesses and strengths are balanced. The proposal contains no deficiencies.

UNACCEPTABLE

The Evaluation Factor response is expected to introduce excessive risk making it highly unlikely that performance would meet objectives. An UNACCEPTABLE rating indicates that the proposed solution contains significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

NEUTRAL

Only applicable to Past performance in which the past performance references were insufficient to demonstrate meaningful past performance (i.e. no performance records, or past performance submissions are not relevant in terms of size, scope and complexity). A NEUTRAL rating will not be used to the advantage or disadvantage of the offeror. If a Neutral rating is made, Past Performance will not be used in the overall rating.

3.5 OTHER EVALUATION TERMS

Strength An aspect of a proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance, or provides an approach directly related to the requirement that exceeds the minimum expectation.

Weakness “Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant

Weakness

“Significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency “Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk “Risk” A measure of the inability to achieve program objectives within defined cost and schedule constraints. Risk is associated with all aspects of the program, e.g., threat, technology, design processes, or Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) elements.

It has two components, the probability of failing to achieve a particular outcome, and the consequences of failing to achieve that outcome.

3.6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE

The TEP shall use the following procedure to analyze the technical proposals and document its analysis. Unless otherwise specified, the same procedures apply to individual evaluations and consensus evaluations.

General Procedures Applicable to Individual and Consensus Evaluations

Proceed in alphabetical order by company name and complete the entire evaluation of that company’s technical proposal before going on to the next proposal.

Document strengths, weaknesses, major weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks, and provide detailed examples from the proposal as well as the individual evaluator’s or TEP’s explanations regarding why the example is a strength, weakness, major weakness, deficiency, or risk. Include citations to reference pages that support the analysis.

Assign a rating to each factor. Add any helpful explanations and general comments about the factor that do not fit neatly into strengths, weaknesses, major weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

Assign an overall rating to the technical proposal. Once again, feel free to add other comments regarding the proposal. Evaluate each proposal only against the rating scale – not against other proposals.

Consider any relevant information that appears in the technical proposal in documenting strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks and in scoring a particular factor, even if the information appears in a proposal section applicable to another evaluation factor. However, evaluators need not dig through the entire proposal looking for potentially relevant information if the proposal is organized factor by factor.

Specific Instructions Regarding Individual Evaluations

First, read the technical proposal all the way through. Then read the section applicable to the factor being scored, to identify strengths, weaknesses, major weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks in each factor. Evaluators may find it more efficient to evaluate all the factors simultaneously, because many proposals are organized by evaluation factor-

Use the individual evaluation sheets to document the evaluation. Do not write notes anywhere but on the evaluation sheets.

Individual evaluation sheets are usually destroyed and are not included in procurement files. However, only the contracting officer may destroy these sheets, after obtaining the consent of counsel. Despite the expectation that the individual sheets will remain undisclosed, situations could occur that result in their release. To avoid embarrassment or worse, TEP members must remain judicious in their comments, and must avoid sarcasm, personal attacks, or statements that could cause an outsider to question the TEP’s impartiality.

Specific Instructions Regarding the Consensus Process

Convene as a group and hold a detailed discussion designed to reach consensus regarding each proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks; the ratings for each factors; and an overall rating.

Consensus is an agreement, reached after thoughtful, respectful conversation. It is not a majority vote nor is it the result of averaging individual scores or compromising. If the group cannot reach consensus on a particular issue, the individual(s) that do not concur with the rest of the group’s evaluation must document their rationale(s) separately, to ensure that the Source Selection Official has a full understanding of the TEP’s deliberations.

Using a computerized version of the rating form, document the group’s conclusions regarding the strengths, weaknesses, major weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks for each - factor. Additionally, list any areas needing clarification, resolution of ambiguity, or expansion. The group may also add general comments regarding its views of the proposal.

During the consensus process, TEP members frequently change their initial views regarding particular proposals. The TEP need not document these changes.

If the TEP believes that, after discussions, an offeror is likely to improve a marginal rating or even an unacceptable rating to the point where it may be in line for award, the TEP is free to recommend that the company be included in the competitive range.

After the TEP finishes its deliberations, the Contracting Officer may decide to obtain the TEP’s view on the business proposal. The TEP should use the business information for three purposes:

o To validate whether its original analysis of the technical proposal

(especially the offeror’s understanding of the requirements) was valid;

o To assist the Business Evaluation Committee in understanding the cost or pricing; and o To perform a cost-technical trade-off to recommend which proposals the

Agency should include in the competitive range. Note that an agency is forbidden from eliminating a technically acceptable proposal from the competitive range without considering pricing, hence a trade-off is necessary before discussions. Cost-technical trade-offs are the only stage of a procurement where evaluators may rank proposals or compare them to each other.

The TEP chair will submit the technical consensus report to the Contracting

Officer, who will use it to determine the competitive range, and with the TEP’s input, to draft discussion questions and requests for clarifications.

Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)

The TEP may choose whether to analyze FPRs by examining only the changed portions of the technical proposals and determining whether the amendments merit changes (either increases or decreases) in the technical scores; or, alternatively, to reevaluate the amended technical proposals in their entirety. The latter method usually takes longer than the former, but is likely to result in a more accurate review of the proposal. Once the TEP chooses a method, however, it must analyze all FPRs using the same approach.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the TEP chairperson and Contracting

Officer should decide whether the TEP members should first analyze the FPRs individually or whether the TEP should convene immediately to discuss the revisions as a group.

If the TEP assigns a weakness to the FPR that existed in the initial proposal and the Agency did not raise the weakness during discussions, the panel must notify the Contracting Officer or counsel about the newly discovered weakness.

During review of each FPR, the TEP should reexamine its previous list of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and risks and determine whether to change any of its initial ratings. The TEP may change the ratings either because of proposal amendments or because the TEP members no longer agree with their earlier evaluation. A final proposal revision that is technically unacceptable in any

-factors is ineligible for award.

After the TEP finishes its deliberations, the Contracting Officer may once again seek the TEP’s view on the final business proposal. The TEP should once again use the business information for three purposes:

o To validate whether its original analysis of the technical FPR (especially the offeror’s understanding of the requirements) was valid;

o To assist the Business Evaluation Committee in understanding the cost or pricing; and o To perform a cost-technical trade-off to recommend which proposal the

SSO should select for award.

Reports

Reports should be detailed and clear, and should avoid jargon. The TEP’s initial report must include:

An introduction.

A complete list of the evaluation factors (including the price or cost factor).

The weights for each factor (including the price or cost factor).

A table containing the rating scale and definitions for each rating

(e.g., excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory).

A list of proposals that the TEP deemed technically unacceptable and the scoring of those proposals.

A table containing a list of all the proposals and their scoring on each factor, as well as their overall technical scores.

An exact copy of the consensus sheets documenting, for each technical proposal, the TEP’s conclusions regarding the strengths, weaknesses, major weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks for each factor; listing any areas needing clarification, resolution of ambiguity, or expansion; listing any general comments regarding the TEPs views of the proposal; and listing any other information that the TEP noted during its initial evaluation. If the TEP did not reach consensus on a particular issue, the report must document the rationale of the dissenting individuals. A statement concerning whether the TEP concluded that any technically unacceptable proposals, after discussions and reasonable revisions, could improve sufficiently that they might be in line for award.

If the Contracting Officer allows the TEP to view the business proposals, the TEP must document its additional analysis (including, if applicable, any changes to the technical evaluation or recommendations) in a numbered, dated addendum, signed by all the TEP members. The addendum should include a simple cost-technical trade-off to arrive at a recommendation regarding which firms to include in the competition range.

If a solicitation amendment results in technical proposal amendments, the TEP need only generate another addendum to the technical report, once again numbered and marked by date, and signed by each panel member. The TEP’s report on its analysis of the FPRs should include:

A list of proposals that the Contracting Officer eliminated from the competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2) in order to permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals, and the scoring of those proposals.

A list of all the companies included in the competitive range, including whether they submitted an FPR.

A table containing a list of all the FPRs and their scoring on each factor, as well as their overall technical scores.

A list of FPRs that the TEP deemed technically unacceptable and the scoring of those proposals.

An exact copy of any consensus sheets documenting, for each

FPR, the TEP’s conclusions regarding the strengths, weaknesses, major weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks for each factor; listing any general comments regarding the TEPs views of the proposal;

and listing any other information that the TEP noted during its final evaluation. If the TEP did not reach consensus on a particular issue, the report must document the rationale of the dissenting individuals.

If the TEP reviews the final business proposals, it must document its additional analyses (including, if applicable, any changes to the technical evaluation or recommendations) in a numbered, dated addendum to the final technical report, signed by all the TEP members. The addendum should include a recommended cost-technical trade-off. This trade-off should be detailed enough that the SSO can fully understand all the bases upon which the TEP believes paying a premium for a more highly rated proposal

3.7 The TEP’s Role in Source Selection

The TEP Chair, Contracting Officer, counsel, and any other members of the TEP or the Business Evaluation Committee who have expertise to contribute, will prepare the final SEB Report for the SSO. The TEP reports and Business Evaluation Committee reports will form the basis of the recommendation to the SSO, with a cover memo providing an introduction and any other information that the Contracting Officer deems helpful.

The TEP Chair, the Contracting Officer, and anyone else that the SSO requests will brief the SSO orally before the SSO selects the awardee. The

SSO will issue a source selection memo that serves as the decision document. The TEP chair and other members may be asked to participate in drafting the source selection memo.

4.1 General Information

Procurement Sensitive Information

All proposals and additional information submitted by interested firms, evaluation notes, working papers and draft documents are considered procurement sensitive. Guidelines for handling procurement sensitive information are contained in the Source Selection Plan.

4.2 Past Performance and Company Experience

Past performance measures how successfully a company performed on previous contracts, while company experience analyzes the extent to which a company’s previous work has prepared it to perform the tasks needed for the contract. All FEMA procurements evaluate past performance, although not all examine company experience.

The Business Evaluation Committee will contact the offerors’ past performance references and will download past performance information available in “PPIRS”. The contracting officer or contract specialist will provide the TEP with the past performance information that the Business

Evaluation Committee obtained, as well as with any questionnaires that the references submit. The TEP members are also free to use their own knowledge about an offeror’s past performance or to contact those who have such knowledge, as long as the TEP report reflects all oral information that the TEP considered. Use personal knowledge only to evaluate past performance, and not any other factor.

Although contracts with a similar type and scope of work usually are entitled to greater weight than dissimilar or significantly smaller contracts in a past performance evaluation, the TEP must be careful not to lower a company’s past performance score because its past performance is not sufficiently relevant to the current work. A company with no relevant experience should receive a neutral score for “past performance,” which neither harms nor benefits it during a cost-technical trade-off. Under such circumstances, the TEP should consider assigning a low score under the experience factor, but not the past performance factor. Also, a company with a high score for experience may have performed poorly on its contracts and should receive a low score for past performance under such circumstances.

Sometimes an unusual circumstance arises, where a company with a great deal of relevant experience has no questionnaires available for the TEP to review, or there is no questionnaire for a relevant FEMA contract. The

TEP should consult the Contracting Officer or counsel in all such unusual circumstances.

Both the past performance and experience evaluations should take into account information about predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, joint venturers, and subcontractors that will perform major aspects of the contract

In rating an offeror’s past performance, the TEP should not simply adopt the questionnaires’ scores, either directly or as an average. Instead, the

TEP should arrive at its own assessment of the offeror’s past performance, based on all the available information.

If the TEP scores a company as “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” on past performance, notify the Contracting Officer or counsel at once, because the company may have the right to submit rebuttal information.

Individual Proposal Evaluation Sheet

Firm: __________________________

Five (5) factors are used in the selection of firms. Factors 1 through 5 will be used to evaluate the proposal. Factors 1 through 5 are listed in descending order of importance.

An unsatisfactory rating in any factor in a final proposal revision will result in that proposal being found unsatisfactory.

Factor Name and Number Rating

Factor 1 - Advancing Program Delivery that Increases Public Awareness and leads to Mitigation Actions

Factor 2 - Refining and Implementing

Comprehensive Program Management that Drives Efficiency and Innovation

Factor 3 - Corporate and Staff Capability and Program Knowledge

Factor 4 - Past Performance

Factor 5 - Subcontracting Plan (Large

Businesses Only) – Pass/Fail

OVERALL RATING

NAME:

SIGNATURE DATE:

Individual Proposal Evaluation Sheet

(Continuation)

Firm: _____________________

FACTOR X: Enter factor name here

Rating:

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Deficiencies:

[Editorial Note: This sample shall be expanded to include an evaluation sheet for each

Evaluation Criteria, after the synopsis containing the Evaluation Criteria is approved.]

AAA

BBB

CCC

DDD

EEE

FFF

Appendix B

Consensus Proposal Rating

Firm: __________________________

Five (5) factors are used in the selection of firms. Factors 1 through 5 will be used to evaluate the proposal. Factors 1 through 5 are listed in descending order of importance.

An unsatisfactory rating in any factor in a final proposal revision will result in that proposal being found unsatisfactory.

Factor Name and Number Rating

Factor 1 - Advancing Program Delivery that Increases Public Awareness and leads to Mitigation Actions

Factor 2 - Refining and Implementing

Comprehensive Program Management that Drives Efficiency and Innovation

Factor 3 - Corporate and Staff Capability and Program Knowledge

Factor 4 - Past Performance

Factor 5 - Subcontracting Plan (Large

Businesses Only) – Pass/Fail

OVERALL RATING

NAME:

SIGNATURE DATE:

Consensus Proposal Rating

(Continuation)

Firm: ________________________

FACTOR X: Enter factor name here

Consensus Rating:

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Deficiencies:

[Editorial Note: This sample shall be expanded to include an evaluation sheet for each

Evaluation Criteria, after the synopsis containing the Evaluation Criteria is approved.]

AAA

BBB

CCC

DDD

EEE

FFF

ATTACHMENT L.1

SIMILAR EXPERIENCE MATRIX TEMPLATE

1) Contract/Title, Project Name (Contract Number XXXX)

2) Role (prime, sub, joint venturer, etc.):

3) Your organization’s major subcontractor(s) and joint venturers on the Project:

4) Contracting Agency/Company:

5) CO:

6) COTR:

7) Other Technical POC:

8) Period of Performance:

9) Contract Type (cost reimbursable, fixed price, labor hour, etc.) and Total Value:

10) Describe the work your organization performed on the project:

11) Describe how the project is relevant to the Risk MAP project management contract.

ATTACHMENT L.2

ORGANIZATION’S PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ORGANIZATION’S PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Your assistance is requested in support of a source selection

Please complete this questionnaire and mail or send by fax (202) 646-2964 to:

Ronald O. Ortega, Contracting Officer

FEMA Desired Response Date: December 7, 2012

395 E St. SW, 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20472

When complete, the information on this form is SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

INFORMATION (41 U.S.C. 423) and shall be protected accordingly.

12) TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR

1. CONTRACTOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS

4. CONTRACT NO.:

5. CONTRACT INITIATION DATE:

6. COMPLETION DATE:

7. CONTRACT VALUE $

2. PROJECT NAME:

8. TYPE OF CONTRACT:

9. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT’S KEY CHARACTERISTICS:

Please add a continuation page if additional space is necessary.

TO BE COMPLETED BY EVALUATING ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE

10. EVALUATION

a. EVALUATOR’S NAME, POSITION DURING PROJECT EXECUTION (Project

Manager/COR/Other) AND ORGANIZATION

b. EVALUATOR’S PHONE NUMBER

c. MONTHS PERFORMANCE

MONITORED BY EVALUATOR:

Please check the response code for each topic that best reflects your experience with this contractor:

EX = Exceptional VG = Very Good S = Satisfactory MG =

Marginal US = Unsatisfactory N/O = Not Observed

A. Quality of Products and Services- Assess the contractor’s conformance to contract requirements.

EX VG S MG US N/O

B. Overall Performance- Assess the contractor’s overall performance for the project.

EX VG S MG US N/O

C. Schedule- Assess the timeliness of the contractor against the schedule of activities (as appropriate).

EX VG S MG US N/O

D. Technical Requirements- Assess the contractor’s ability and capacity to fulfill the technical requirements of the contract.

EX VG S MG US N/O

E. Cost Control- Assess the contractor’s willingness and ability to manage the contract budget and control costs.

EX VG S MG US N/O

F. Subcontracting- Assess the contractor’s success at complying with subcontracting goals.

EX VG S MG US N/O

G. Customer Satisfaction- Assess the contractor’s responsiveness to customer concerns and “user friendliness” in ROUTINE matters.

EX VG S MG US N/O

H. Customer Satisfaction- Assess the contractor’s responsiveness to customer concerns and “user friendliness” in UNEXPECTED DIFFICULTIES.

EX VG S MG US N/O

I. Repeat Business- Assess the likelihood that you would want this contractor to perform another contract for you in the near future.

EX VG S MG US N/O

J. List Contractor’s Weak Points:

K. List Contractor’s Strong Points:

L. List any other projects this contractor has completed for you:

M. If an incentive contract, describe the type of incentive involved and the contractor’s success in earning its incentives.