SATPC0034327 Tab 10 Best Value Criteria.pdf
PDF 113 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Specialized training course taught by SMD LEADS Program. Not in SATERN Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 80NSSC24862807Q
About this file
The document provided outlines the Best Value Proposal Evaluation Criteria for a federal contract opportunity. The evaluation criteria include Technical Merit, Programmatic Relevance, and Cost Reasonableness. Technical Merit will be evaluated based on the vendor's response to the course objectives, staff qualifications and experience, past experience delivering similar training products, and customer references. Programmatic Relevance will be evaluated based on the vendor's response to the contractor requirements and their plan to collaborate with NASA LEADS staff. Cost Reasonableness will be evaluated based on the vendor's pricing being within the NASA LEADS budget and industry standards. The Technical End User will use the adjectives "Meets", "Exceeds", "Does Not Meet", and "Can Not Determine" to evaluate each area.
The related federal contract opportunity is a solicitation for a specialized training course taught by the SMD LEADS Program, with Solicitation Number 80NSSC24862807Q. The contract is being issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Shared Services Center.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SATPC0034327 Tab 10 1 Open Market RFQ.pdf | ||
| SATPC0034327 Tab 10 1 Open Market RFQ.pdf | ||
| SATPC0034327 Tab 04 4 SOW.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Best Value Proposal Evaluation Criteria
• Evaluation Criteria:
o Technical Merit:
Response to course “Objectives” Section (3.0 in SOW) Staff qualifications and experience (Section 4.2 in SOW) Past experience delivering similar training products (Proposal Element) Customer references (Proposal Element) o Programmatic Relevance:
Response to “Contractor Requirements” (4.0 Section in SOW) Plan to collaborate with NASA LEADS staff (4.0 Section in SOW) o Cost reasonableness:
Within NASA LEADS budget (Proposal Element) Within industry standards (Proposal Element)
The Technical End User shall use the following adjectives to evaluate each area:
Meets: Meets the stated minimum specifications Exceeds: Exceeds the stated minimum specifications (if the vendor product exceeds the minimum specification, comments will be provided regarding whether the government receives added “value”).
Does Not Meet: Does Not Meet the stated minimum specifications (if the vendor product does not meet the minimum specification, comments will be provided regarding why the specification is not met).
Can Not Determine: Can Not Determine whether the product meets the stated minimum specifications (if it is impossible to determine whether the vendor meets, exceeds, or does not meet, comments will be provided regarding why – e.g., insufficient information, ambiguous or conflicting specifications etc.)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .