14-00002_Evaluation_Factors.docx

ATTACHMENT #7

M -2 EPAAR 1552.215-71 Evaluation Factors for Award (AUG 1999)

(a) The Government will make award to the responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government cost or other factors considered. For this solicitation, all evaluation factors other than cost or price when combined are significantly more important than cost or price.

(b) Evaluation factors and significant subfactors in descending order of importance to determine quality of product or service:

1. Technical Approach and Understanding. The offeror will be evaluated on its demonstrated understanding and approach to performing tasks related to the following areas of the Statement of Work (SOW): Task 1 – Collection of Data; Task 2 – Data Analysis; Task 3 – Technical Program Support – General Support; Task 4 – Technical Program Support – Program Specific; and Task 5 – Physical Testing.

2. Qualifications and Availability of Personnel. The offeror will be evaluated on the demonstrated qualifications (i.e., experience, education, and expertise) and availability of the key and other than key personnel in providing services similar in nature to those described in the SOW. The offeror will be evaluated on the adequacy of the types of personnel, including any proposed subcontractors or consultants, who will form the team, their experience, and their educational background as demonstrated in the Staffing Plan and in resumes of Key Personnel.

3. Past Performance. The offeror will be evaluated on its demonstrated past performance based on the information provided in response to this solicitation via the responses from clients to the Past Performance Questionnaire, information provided in the proposal, and from information obtained through other sources (see the Section L-14 clause entitled, “Past Performance Information” (EPAAR 1552.209-70) for additional details) which are similar in nature to this requirement.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and shall therefore receive a rating of neutral.

4. Corporate Experience. The offeror will be evaluated on its demonstrated ability to manage large, complex projects requiring extensive coordination within and outside of the organization that are of similar size, scope and complexity to the requirement.

ADJECTIVAL EVALUATION SCHEME

The adjectival evaluation scheme for the technical approach and understanding, qualifications and availability of personnel, corporate experience and past performance is as follows:

Adjectival Rating

Definition

not offset by disadvantages; very good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards; has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government.

understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards; acceptable solution presented.

understanding of requirements and approach only marginally meets or fails to meet performance or capability standards; low probability of success with a high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

4. WRITTEN PLANS (Pass/Fail) – Responsibility Matters

QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (QMP)

As part of the responsibility determination, the offeror’s QMP will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable based on meeting the requirements for Quality Management Plans as outlined at the following website:

http://www.epa.gov/quality/qmps.html

An offeror with an unacceptable QMP at the time of contract award will be ineligible for contract award.

SECURITY PLAN

As part of the responsibility determination, the offeror’s Security Plan will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable based on meeting the requirements for Security Plans identified in EPAAR 1552.235-75, Access to Toxic Substances Control Act Confidential Business Information as well as the requirements for Security Plans outlined at the following website:

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pubs/tsca-cbi-protection-manual.pdf

An offeror with an unacceptable Security Plan at the time of contract award will be ineligible for contract award.

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

As part of the responsibility determination, the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable based on meeting the requirements outlined in FAR 52.219-9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN.

An offeror with an unacceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan at the time of contract award will be ineligible for contract award.