Revised Techincal_Eval_draft.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ARTICLE M.1. FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) Basis for Award. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented by the Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR) will be used to evaluate the quote and award this requirement. The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include Factor 1: Technical Capability (which encompasses two (2) sub factors: 1 –Technical Approach, and 2 –Technical Experience), Factor 2: Past Performance, and Factor 3: Price. Although the technical capability factor is of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, past performance and price are also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Government will utilize a tradeoff approach to determine the Quoter who provides the best value to the Government. One (1) award is intended as a result of this solicitation.

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 SOLICITATION. The merits of each submission will be evaluated carefully. Each submission must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements of the SOLICITATION. Quoters must submit information sufficient to evaluate their submission based on the detailed factors listed below.

1. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: The Government will evaluate the technical submission to ensure it is acceptable or higher. Each submission will be rated utilizing the ratings defined below (price excluded). Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the Quoter’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements, and potential to exceed those requirements.

b. Sub factor 1 – Technical Approach: The Quoter’s submission shall be evaluated to ensure they demonstrate:

- Approaches/solutions, strategies, alternatives, and assumptions which are considered feasible and practical and are compatible with technological requirements described in the

PWS;

- Approaches/solutions, strategies, alternatives, and assumptions that are clear and precise and are considered to reflect low risk and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements;

- A concise and clear approach to accomplish the Government’s requirement; and

- Experience that demonstrates they possess a clear understanding and familiarity with the work needed to successfully execute the requirements of the PWS;

- The ability to support multiple, complex tasks simultaneously; and

- The ability to successfully execute the approach proposed.

c. Sub factor 2 –Technical Experience: In order to be considered acceptable the Quoter’s responses must at a minimum demonstrate:

- Their ability to provide the services that comply with the technical requirements of the

PWS.

- Experience that demonstrates they possess a clear understanding and familiarity with the work needed to successfully execute the requirements of the PWS.

Evaluation Matrix for Technical Evaluation Criteria: A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each sub factor. Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award.

RATING DEFINITION

Outstanding

The quoter has demonstrated that their technical capability is of high quality such that their performance is expected to result in superior achievement of the Government’s objectives and requirements with minimal risk. An “Outstanding” rating may indicate that the quoter’s technical approach contains strengths with no weaknesses.

Good

The quoter has demonstrated that their technical capability is of good quality such that their performance is expected to result in full achievement of the Government’s objectives and requirements with minimal risk. A “Good” rating may indicate that the quoter’s technical approach contains strengths with few weaknesses.

Acceptable

The quoter has demonstrated that their technical capability is adequate and of quality such that their performance is expected to introduce moderate risk but they are considered likely to produce performance results meeting the Government’s objectives and requirements. An “Acceptable” rating may indicate that the Quoter’s technical approach reveals a number of strengths, but also some weaknesses. Or no strengths or weaknesses.

Marginal

The quoter has demonstrated that their technical capability is barely sufficient and of poor quality such that their performance is expected to introduce a high risk that it would not achieve the Government’s objectives and requirements. A “Marginal” rating may indicate that the quoter’s technical approach reveals few strengths, and significant weaknesses.

Unacceptable

The quoter has not demonstrated that their technical capability is insufficient and of poor quality such that their performance is expected to introduce excessive risk, making it highly unlikely that performance would meet the Government’s objectives and requirements. An “Unacceptable” rating may indicate that the quoter’s technical capability reveals weaknesses that significantly exceed any strengths.

2. FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will assess the Quoter’s recent and relevant past performance as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the likelihood of the Quoter to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three years from the RFQ release date; relevant in terms of size, scope, and complexity.

The submission will be evaluated on the following:

(a) Relevancy of information obtained from references provided by the Quoter, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the Quoter concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

(b) Relevancy of past performance to the PWS in quality of services; timeliness of performance and record of meeting schedules; ability to understand and resolve deficiencies in a timely manner with no adverse impact on the mission, general responsiveness to contract requirements and to technical direction; and, customer satisfaction.

Evaluation Matrix for Past Performance

RATING DEFINITION

Outstanding

Based on the quoter’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks have been identified or associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the quoter’s experiences indicate that the Quoter is capable of significantly exceeding the requirements of the solicitation.

Good

The quoter’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance.

Past performance surveys and the quoter’s experience indicate the quoter is capable of exceeding the requirements of the solicitation.

Acceptable

The quoter’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the quoter’s experience indicate the quoter is capable of meeting the requirements of the solicitation.

Unsatisfactory The quoter’s record of past performance indicates it is likely to have problems meeting the requirements of the solicitation.

Neutral No past performance available for evaluation. quoter has asserted that it has no directly related or relevant past performance experience. Quote receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

3. FACTOR 3 - PRICE: Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate each Quoters total price in the contract price summary sheet as well as the prices in the contract pricing matrix and hourly labor rates to determine if the Quoters’ prices are fair and reasonable utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR Part 13. 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 price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106.

(End of provision)