TechEval.docx

Technical Evaluation Criteria for the 2019 Auditorium Upgrades

Past Performance, Technical Approach and 508 Compliance.

Non-Price Evaluation Criteria Each proposal was evaluated by the TEP using the following non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance:

1. Past Performance

a. Relevant (R)

b. Beneficial (B)

c. No Finding (N)

d. Adverse (A)

e. Decisively Adverse (DA)

2. Technical Approach

a. Strength (significant or not)

b. Weakness (significant or not)

c. Deficiency (material or administrative)

3. 508 Compliance

a) Weakness

Definitions of Findings:

Below is the list of merit findings used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1, Past Performance Definition of Findings:

Relevant: A record that is similar in size, scope and complexity to the work required in the SOW.

Beneficial: A past performance finding that demonstrates an Offeror’s ability to provide an added benefit to the Government or demonstrates a superior operational performance by an Offeror.

No Rating (Neutral): The past performance information does not warrant either a positive or negative finding, either because the information is not recent, or relevant enough to be an indicator of potential future performance of the work described in the solicitation, or else the information fails to demonstrate in a material and compelling way the qualities described in the definition of the other findings.

Adverse: A past performance finding that demonstrates an Offeror has not conformed to contract requirements, not correctly forecasted and/or controlled costs, or not adhered to contract schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance). Adverse past performance findings may relate to a single incident with a correction made by the contractor; however, the incident is worth noting as a risk that may reflect future issues and/or need for heightened Government review and monitoring Decisively Adverse: A past performance finding that demonstrates an Offeror’s significant and/or continuing inability to perform the work at an acceptable level. These findings may be a habitual issue that remains unresolved after a series of findings or an individual finding that puts the program at unacceptable levels of risk

Factor 2: Technical Approach Definition of Findings:

Strength: an item in the proposal that exceeds a requirement and adds value by virtue of the benefit to the Government in achieving its objectives. This could include enhanced performance beyond requirements or reduced risk in meeting requirements. Simply meeting a requirement is not considered a strength, nor is exceeding the requirement without adding value. If the strength will result in a substantial benefit to the Government because of its significant, positive impact on the achievement of the Government’s objectives, the finding is a Significant Strength.

Weakness: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. The proposal response still meets the Government’s needs but there is something about it that could be improved to better meet or exceed the government’s objective(s). If the weakness substantially increases the risk of unsuccessful performance, classify the finding as a Significant Weakness.

Deficiency: a material failure to meet a requirement, or else a combination of significant weaknesses, that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptably high level. Only material deficiencies should be listed. Informational deficiencies (i.e., missing resumes, education not listed, etc.) are administrative in nature which does not add significant risk.

Factor 3: Section 508 Compliance Definition of Findings:

Weakness: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. The proposal response still meets the Government’s needs but there is something about it that could be improved to better meet or exceed the government’s objective(s). If the weakness substantially increases the risk of unsuccessful performance, classify the finding as a Significant Weakness.

Definitions of risk findings for non-price factors other than Past Performance are as follows:

High risk: Proposed solution lacks clarity and precision, is generally unsupported, and does not demonstrate understanding of the requirements.

Medium risk: Proposed solution is only somewhat clear and precise, only partially supported, and demonstrates less-than-complete understanding of the requirements.

Low risk: Proposed solution is generally clear, mostly supported, and demonstrates a general understanding of the requirements.

Adjectival Ratings:

Based on the findings made for each evaluation factor, the TEP will assign a rating. Ratings serve as a means of grading each factor based on the mix of merit and risk findings and their significance. This evaluation will use adjectival ratings using the scale(s) set forth below:

Factor 1: Past Performance Adjectival Ratings:

a. Good

b. Neutral

c. Unacceptable

Factors 2: Technical Approach Adjectival Ratings:

a. Excellent

b. Good

c. Satisfactory

d. Marginal

e. Unacceptable

Factor 3: Section 508 Compliance Adjectival Ratings:

a. Acceptable

b. Acceptable with Weakness

c. Unacceptable

Factor 1: Past Performance Definitions for the Adjectival Ratings:

Good: The offeror’s past performance record collectively demonstrates that the contractor consistently provides quality service and delivers benefits to the Government. The offeror’s past performance record must have beneficial findings that outweigh any adverse findings and contains no decisively adverse findings.

Neutral: The offeror’s past performance record collectively demonstrates neither a level of quality service that consistently benefits the Government that would warrant a Good rating, nor does it reflect consistent unacceptable performance that would warrant an Unacceptable rating. This rating will be assigned to an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available.

Unacceptable: The offeror’s past performance record collectively demonstrates that the contractor consistently performs at an unacceptable level and/or demonstrates a clear expectation that similar high risk issues may be expected. The offeror’s past performance record must have one or more decisively adverse findings.

Factors 2: Technical Approach Definitions for the Adjectival Ratings:

Excellent: The proposal demonstrates a high level of competence and indicates a reasonably good probability that all goals and objectives will be met and many will be exceeded. The proposal is comprehensive, thorough and is characterized by sound approaches with multiple strengths and few, if any, weaknesses and risks. There are no material deficiencies and the proposal is technically acceptable. The strengths of the proposal far outweigh any weaknesses and risks.

Good: The proposal demonstrates competence and indicates a reasonably good probability that all goals and objectives will be met and that some will be exceeded. The proposal is characterized by sound approaches with one or more strengths. There are no material deficiencies and the proposal is technically acceptable. There are few weaknesses and risks, if any. The strengths of the proposal outweigh any weaknesses and risks.

Satisfactory: The proposal demonstrates ability to perform the services with reasonably good probability that all goals and objectives will be met. There are no material deficiencies and the proposal is technically acceptable. The proposal is characterized by sound approaches. There may be no findings at all. There may be both weaknesses/risks and strengths, where the benefits of the strengths and the drawbacks of weaknesses/risks offset one another.

Marginal: The proposal demonstrates a lack of competence and indicates a reasonably good probability that one or more goals and objectives will not be met. Based on information provided, there is doubt that the contractor understands the services required to meet the contract requirements. Requirement/services can be met only with major changes to the proposal. The benefits from any strengths are outweighed by the drawbacks from weaknesses.

Unacceptable: The proposal demonstrates a lack of competence and indicates a reasonably good probability that one or more goals and objectives will not be met. The proposal contains at least one material deficiency, or multiple weaknesses, the correction of which would require a significant revision to the proposal. The proposal includes at least one deficiency or at least two significant weaknesses. The proposal may or may not include strengths. However, the benefits from any strengths are far outweighed by the drawbacks from weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The proposal is not technically acceptable and precludes award to the offeror.

Factor 3: 508 Compliance: Definitions for the Adjectival Ratings:

Acceptable: The Offeror has demonstrated capability to adequately address applicable 508 accessibility standards. This rating indicates a low level of performance risk to the Government.

Acceptable with Weakness: The Offeror has demonstrated capability to address applicable 508 accessibility standards; but there are weaknesses that present risk.

Unacceptable: The Offeror has not demonstrated capability to adequately address applicable 508 accessibility standards. This rating indicates a high level of performance risk.

Summary of Adjectival Ratings and Rank:

The table below reflects the result of the TEP’s technical evaluation and ranking of the proposals for each offeror:

Past Performance (G,N,U)

Technical Approach (E,G,S,M,U)

508 Compliance (A,AW,U)

Overall Ranking (Non price factors)