Attachment_5_--_Exhibit_No._2.docx

Attachment 5

Offeror:

EXHIBIT No. 2 - evaluation sheets

Each proposal will be evaluated against the PWS and the stated evaluation criteria. Each proposal is evaluated using the same rating standards. A rating will be applied to each category for each proposal received. Factors may be added as necessary.

Factor(s) Used

Non-Price/Cost Factors

Evaluation Rating Standards

Exceptional

An exceptional proposal significantly exceeds specified performance or capability in a beneficial way to the Government and has no weaknesses. The proposal exceeds the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the PWS. The evaluator has no doubt that the offeror will successfully achieve the requirements in the PWS and any awarded task orders based on the proposed technical approach. The offeror acknowledges risks and develops an approach that proactively identifies and mitigates risks, and looks to reduce or eliminate future risks. For Factor 2, Past Performance, met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective

Good

A good proposal exceeds specific performance or capability in a beneficial way to the Government and has few weaknesses. The offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements as defined in the PWS. The evaluator has a high degree of confidence that the offeror can successfully achieve the requirements based on the proposed technical approach. The offeror acknowledges technical or schedule risk and develops an approach capable of mitigating all apparent risks effectively. For Factor 2, Past Performance, met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Acceptable

An acceptable proposal contains strengths that outweigh any existing weaknesses. The offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the PWS. The evaluator is confident that the offeror can successfully achieve the requirements in the PWS based on the proposed technical approach. For Factor 2, Past Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Unacceptable

An unacceptable proposal does not meet one or more of the solicitation requirements. The approach contains significant weaknesses and deficiencies. The evaluator is confident that the offeror will be unable to successfully complete the required tasking. The proposal does not adequately acknowledge or address risk, mitigate risk, or may actually introduce risk. For Factor 2, Past Performance did not meet many contractual requirements and recovery was not timely. The contractual performance contained serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

Standard Definitions

Strength

A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

A strength is an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Note: Simple adherence to the requirements or ability to meet a requirement is compliance but should not be listed as a strength.

State the Strength Requirement: State what the requirement is and where in the RFP it was required.

How does the strength exceed the requirement?

Explain benefit to the Government of this strength State whether strength will be added to contract or is inherent in the proposal

A significant weakness is defined as an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

State the Weakness or Significant Weakness Will the weakness have an impact on schedule, cost or performance?

Did the offeror propose risk mitigation?

Deficiency

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.

State the Deficiency What requirement in the PWS did the offeror fail to meet? Where was the requirement?

Uncertainty

State item on which you need more information or where the information is unclear.

What did the RFP require?

What did the offeror provide?

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

DESCRIPTION OF FACTOR

The degree to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates their managerial ability to handle complex projects (e.g. multiple governmental, agencies, multiple disciplines, multiple tasks) through documented history of timely completion of past projects and efficient organizational framework.

Demonstrate experience (5 years minimum) in studies/analysis of environmentally sensitive areas, with emphasis on biological preservation and ecosystem enhancement in the southwestern United States, especially in the international border to include the Rio Grande and the Colorado River ecosystems.

Demonstrate experience (5 years minimum) in preparation of EAs, FONSIs, EISs, RODs, etc. and conduct public participation programs in development of environmental documents. Demonstrate experience in post construction monitoring.

Demonstrate training (last 3 years) in hydraulics modeling, ecosystem preservation, surveying, and GIS development.

Demonstrate experience (5 years minimum) working on historical resource projects to include mitigation projects with the State Historical Preservation Office, development of HABS/HAER documentation, archaeological field studies, and historical inventories.

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

DEFICIENCIES

OVERALL RATING FOR FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2. pAST PERFORMANCE

DESCRIPTION OF FACTOR

Assessment of the offeror's past performance will be one means of evaluating the credibility of the offeror's proposal, and relative capability to meet performance requirements. Information utilized will be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, and others who may have useful and relevant information. Information will also be considered regarding any significant subcontractors and key personnel records.

Evaluation of past performance will often be quite subjective based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will include a determination of the offerors commitment to customer satisfaction and will include conclusions of informed judgment. However, the basis for conclusions of judgment will be documented.

Award may be made from the initial offers without discussions. However, if discussions are held, offerors will be given an opportunity to address unfavorable reports of past performance, if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to review the rating. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

If an offeror, or the proposed employees for the offeror, does not have a past performance history relating to this solicitation, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor.

SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS

· Do Past Performance References reflect a pattern of successful completion of tasks?

· Do Past Performance References reflect a pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc…)?

· Do Past Performance References reflect a respect for stewardship of Government funds?

· Do the Past Performance References reflect tasks that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand?

· Do the Past Performance References reflect a pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality?

REFERENCES

Date

Name/Organization

POC

Comment

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

DEFICIENCIES

PWS

Ref.

OVERALL RATING FOR FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

DESCRIPTION OF FACTOR

The degree to which the proposal demonstrates the contractor’s staff and subcontractors education and experience to provide the necessary specialized personnel to properly complete the specific task order.

Examples of demonstration of necessary professional qualifications are:

Project Manager or Principal Investigator should have at least one Ph.D. degree within the disciplines listed in the Scope of Work (engineering, environmental sciences, biological sciences, ecological sciences, cultural, and natural resources).

Field Supervision will have at least one Masters Degree for the five disciplines listed in the Scope of Work (engineering, environmental sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences, cultural, and natural resources).

Education level and professional experience (5 years minimum) of key personnel including relevant disciplines research experience as supported by vitae, a list of authored reports, articles and research and/or management reports and experience (5 years minimum) with study methods and techniques, NEPA and related laws and regulations.

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

DEFICIENCIES

OVERALL RATING FOR FACTOR 3: PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

FACTOR 4. RESOURCES

DESCRIPTION OF FACTOR

The degree to which the proposal demonstrates the contractor’s ability to bring all necessary resources to bear on any and all task orders issued.

SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS

· Does the team composition and key personnel demonstrate a minimum of 50% capabilities in house (not subcontracted)?

· Demonstrate rapid response capabilities of accomplishing work orders (provide at least 2 examples).

· Show awareness of Mexican laws and regulations as evidenced by environmental projects conducted in both countries.

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

DEFICIENCIES

OVERALL RATING FOR FACTOR 4: RESOURCES

FACTOR 5. LOCATIONS OF PRIME AND SUBCONTRACTORS

DESCRIPTION OF FACTOR

The degree to which the proposal demonstrates the contractor’s mobilization, knowledge and familiarity, and experience within the USIBWC’s areas of interest along the United States – Mexican border.

This is demonstrated by having an office for the Project Manager and key personnel located within 200 miles of the border preferably located near El Paso, Texas.

The subcontractor's key personnel should have key offices located near the United States and Mexico border preferably with offices in key cities in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

DEFICIENCIES

OVERALL RATING FOR FACTOR 5: LOCATION

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

DESCRIPTION OF FACTOR

The degree to which the Offeror’s three (3) work plans demonstrates a complete understanding of the government supplied Statement of Work (SOW).

Demonstrates in the work plan the ability to bring the correct personnel with the education, experience, and accreditations necessary to accomplish the requirements of the SOW.

Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to prepare a work plan from the supplied SOWs that is concise and professional. Met Work Plan requirements as set forth in Section 5.3 of the PWS.

Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to properly allocate resources to accomplish the requirements in the SOW without using unnecessary or excessive resources.

Demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to develop a work plan that provides the government with the recommendations and subject matter expertise that will inform the government of the method the Offeror will use to accomplish the requirements of the SOW.

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

DEFICIENCIES

OVERALL RATING FOR FACTOR 6: TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

Non-Price/Cost Factors

Individual Overall Rating

EVALUATOR SIGNATURE:

By signing below the evaluator confirms that he/she has personally reviewed the technical proposal discussed herein without access to the price/cost portion of any proposal.

Printed Name

Signature

Date

Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.