Proposal Evaluation Criteria 2020-11-29.docx

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Contents

Section 1: Evaluation Methodology Ratings based on Technical aspects of a quote/proposal will utilize the Adjectival Rating, Go/No Go and/or Confidence Ratings systems (defined below).

Technical Evaluation Factors

· Maximum working temperature.

· Ability to operate using reactive gasses.

· Maximum sample size.

Section 2: Evaluation Factors The award decision is based on evaluation factors and significant subfactors that are tailored to the acquisition.

Evaluation factors and significant subfactors must:

1. Represent the key areas of importance and emphasis that directly relate to the purpose or objective of the acquisition; and

2. Support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals.

Select whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are:

1. Significantly more important than cost or price; or

2. Approximately equal to cost or price; or

3. Significantly less important than cost or price.

State whether the evaluation factors are:

1. “In ascending order of importance” (increasing in importance); or

2. “In descending order of importance” (decreasing in importance), or

3. “All of equal importance”

1.1 Factor 1 <Technical Factors>

1.1.1 Subfactor 1 <Maximum Working Temperature>

Submission Requirements:

What USDA will use to evaluate this subfactor

· The minimum requirement is for the furnace to reach 2000 °C working temperature. There is a desire, however, to exceed 2000 °C and approach a working temperature of approximately 2500 °C or greater. Greater rating is due for proposals that can offer temperatures exceeding the 2000 °C minimum.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Adjectival Rating, Go/No Go and/or Confidence Ratings, and the relationship between the methodology. For example: The adjectival rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.

· Proposals with maximum working temperatures less than 2000 °C will be rated as unsatisfactory proposals.

· Proposals with maximum working temperature of 2000 °C will be rated as satisfactory proposals.

· Proposals with maximum working temperature of greater than 2000 °C but less than 2500 °C will be rated as very good proposals.

· Proposals with maximum working temperature of 2500 °C or greater will be rated as exceptional proposals.

1.1.2 Subfactor 2 <Ability to operate using reactive gas atmosphere> Submission Requirements:

What USDA will use to evaluate this subfactor

· There is a desire to use reactive gases such as 4% H2 / 96% Ar, 4% CH4 / 96% Ar, or 5% NH3 / 95% Ar in the furnace. Furnaces capable of operating under reactive gas atmospheres will receive a higher rating than furnaces only capable of operating under vacuum or inert gas (i.e. Ar, N2) atmosphere. The price is expected to increase if reactive gases can be used.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

Adjectival Rating, Go/No Go and/or Confidence Ratings, and the relationship between the methodology. For example: The adjectival rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance.

· Proposals not allowing use of reactive gases will be rated as marginal.

· Proposals allowing use of one reactive gas type will be rated as satisfactory proposals.

· Proposals allowing use of two reactive gas types will be rated as very good proposals.

· Proposals allowing use of three or more reactive gas types will be rated as exceptional proposals.

1.1.3 Subfactor 3 <Sample Size>

· The desired sample size for material heated in the furnace is 3” diameter x 8” long/height. Furnace chamber must be able to accommodate samples this size.

Evaluation Criteria/Methodology:

· Proposals will be evaluated on a Go/No Go methodology. Specifically, for a vendor to be considered for an award, the proposed solution must meet the minimum technical criteria listed for sample size.

1.2 Factor 3: Cost/Price

1.2.1 Contract Cost/Price

Lowest Cost and within government estimate

Section 3: Definitions

2.1 Go/No Go Ratings

The term “Pass/Fail” will not be utilized in any rating; instead “Go/No Go” will be utilized. When Go/No Go ratings are utilized the following sentence shall appear in the request “Specifically, for a vendor to be considered for an award, the proposed solution must meet the minimum technical criteria listed.”

2.2 Adjectival Ratings

2.3 Technical Confidence Rating

High Confidence (Low Risk) The Government has high confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence (Moderate Risk) The Government has some confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence (High Risk) The Government has low confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

2.4 Quote/Proposal Metrics

When identifying the merits of a quote/proposal the following three terms shall be utilized along with the definitions.

image1.png