EvalCriteria_Uniform.docx

NIH/OD/OLAO/OA

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

GENERAL

The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include technical (which encompasses experience, technical approach, corporate and human resources, quality control and past performance factors) and cost/price factors. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, cost/price is also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. In any case, the Government reserves the right to make award(s) to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

Offerors are advised that award will be made to that offeror whose proposal provides the combination of features that offers the best or greatest overall value to the Government. The Government is more concerned with obtaining performance capability superiority rather than lowest overall cost. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve only slightly superior performance. Overall cost to the Government may become the ultimate factor for award of a contract as proposals become more equal based on other factors.

The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the RFP. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of requirements of the RFP. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed criteria below.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

The criteria below are listed in the relative order of importance.

1. Key Personnel and Personnel Management A) Project Manager should have experience in working with Government clients.

B) Personnel used on this project should have experience in providing uniform services for other agencies to include alterations.

2. Corporate Experience and Capabilities A. Experience providing similar products/services to Government, State and/or local police departments.

B. Providing automated ordering services for Government, State and/or local police departments.

3. General Technical Approach A. Approach on how you will provide uniforms and other required items within the time frame specified.

B. Have sufficient stock on hand so officers can go to the Contractor’s location and select off the shelf clothing items for immediate use.

4. Quality Assurance A. Tracking systems in place for shipping and delivery of items sent to requestor.

ADJECTIVAL RATING

The Government will evaluate the Technical Proposal using the following adjectival rating.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance Factor evaluation will assess the relevance and breadth of the Offeror’s experience and the quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Offeror consistently delivers quality services in a timely and cost effective manner. In evaluating past performance, HHS/NIH will only take into consideration the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Offeror's customers. However, the HHS/NIH reserves the right to use other relevant past performance information it obtains through other sources including other agency databases and information contained in trade literature.

Relevance of Experience: The Offeror’s experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirement on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type, and period of performance. Only recent experience will be evaluated (within the past 3 years).

Past Performance Assessments: The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of information contained in the Offeror's proposal and the information that the Government obtains through other means. The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s record of providing high quality services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures maximum quality, cost effectiveness and overall client satisfaction.

If some of the Offeror’s experience is relevant and the rest is not, only the relevant experience will be evaluated for purposes of past performance. If no experience is relevant or the experience that is relevant cannot be evaluated due to a reference’s failure to respond, a rating of neutral will be assigned for past performance as defined below.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the following adjectival ratings.

COST/PRICE FACTORS

Offeror(s) cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Please complete the attached

SELECTION FOR AWARD

Offeror should be aware that the Government shall perform a “best value analysis” and the selection for award shall be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, taking into consideration the technical factors listed above and the total proposed price. Evaluation of proposals will be conducted using the trade-off process.