Attachment E - Evaluation Criteria -0003.pdf

Consolidated All-In-One Subscriptions — SP8000-25-Q-0005

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Evaluator Name: ______________________________________________________________

Evaluator Title: ______________________________________________________________

Please evaluate the following proposal based on the offeror’s Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Delivery Schedule. Complete this evaluation form by selecting a “Rating” below for each factor and sub-factor and complete a narrative.

FACTOR 1 - Technical Approach: Evaluation will consider the contractor’s technical approach after rating the four technical approach sub-factors listed below and provide an over-all rating for factor 1 – Technical Approach in the Rating Block below.

RATING (select one):

Technical Approach Over-All Rating

RATING (SELECT

ONE):

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the

*Please identify and explain what specific areas of the technical approach determined the rating.

Narrative:

SUBFACTOR 1 – Obtaining and Maintaining Subscription Accounts:

Per section 4.0 of the SOW, the proposal indicates that the contractor will identify users of the publications and periodicals determined in Attachment B and make the publications and periodicals available to designated users within DLA Strategic Materials. The contractor clearly indicates that the sources will be available to DLA Strategic Personal uninterrupted for the duration of the performance period, and that all sources will be made available by the Delivery/Renewal Data. The proposal indicated that the government retains the option to remove, add, or transfer users, and that all changes will be made within a two (2) week period.

Technical Approach - Subfactor 1 Rating

ONE):

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the

SUBFACTOR 2 – Response to Access Issues Per Section 4.0 of the SOW, the contractor clearly indicates that any issues involving access to the subscriptions will be addressed within 30 days.

Technical Approach - Subfactor 2 Rating

ONE):

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the

SUBFACTOR 3 – Online Access In accordance with Section 4.1 of the SOW, the contractor clearly states that they will establish and maintain connection to the service providers’ systems. No hardware or equipment, except for that required for Bloomberg, is included. The proposal indicates that only services which require the World Wide Web are included.

Technical Approach - Subfactor 3 Rating

ONE):

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the

NOTES:

SUBFACTOR 4 – Additional Subscriptions Per section 4.3 of the SOW, the contractor clearly identifies that they will provide any additional subscriptions upon request by DLA Strategic Materials. The ordering process in section 4.3.1 of the SOW is clearly understood.

Technical Approach - Subfactor 4 Rating

ONE):

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the

SUBFACTOR 5 – Master Service Agreements Per section 3.0 of the SOW, the contractor clearly identifies that Master Service Agreements with the subcontractors will not be necessary to obtain access to the various subscriptions and that the government will not need to work directly with the subscription providers to obtain access to the listed items in Attachment B.

Technical Approach - Subfactor 4 Rating

ONE):

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum performance requirements for this solicitation. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertains to the work, products, and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The offeror shall identify its past performance information as requested herein. The Past Performance Acceptability assessment is based on recency, relevancy, and quality of historical contracts.

Past performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s present or past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current requirement. Common elements of relevancy include similarity of service / support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontract / teaming.

Second, the past performance evaluation will determine how well an offeror performed on current or prior contracts. The past performance evaluation process gathers information from an offeror’s customers on how well the offeror performed on current or past contracts and includes a history of successful completion of projects, a history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables, a commitment to customer satisfaction, and a history of staying on schedule and within budget.

Past Performance information may be obtained from Past Performance Questionnaires, Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance / Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other sources available to the Government. The Past Performance evaluation process does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on present / past contracts.

The Offeror may submit up to three (3) previously awarded contracts, awarded within the past four years as of the date of this solicitation’s posting; with at least one year of completed performance as of the date of this solicitation’s posting; and of similar scope, size, and complexity to the current requirement.

For each of the submitted past performance examples, the Offeror shall provide:

i. The name of the project and the contract ID number.

ii. The name of the contracting agency or organization the contract was awarded by.

iii. The date of the contract award and the contract award amount in dollars.

iv. The date of the contract completion, or expected contract completion.

v. A brief description of the scope of work for the contract in question.

vi. Identification of at least one point-of-contact at the organization that awarded the submitted contract, including (if applicable): the name of the point-of-contact; their current mailing address; phone number; and email address.

*Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this situation, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Past Performance - Overall Rating

ONE):

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below).

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

*Please identify and explain what specific areas of the past performance determined the rating.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

(a) Offerors shall complete the Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) pricing in Section B of the solicitation. The total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the proposed pricing for each CLIN in Section B. The total evaluated price will be used for evaluation purposes. The Government will evaluate the proposal for price reasonableness using the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

OVERALL RATING* (select one):

ONE)

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. All criteria are acceptable.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. If any of the above criteria are non-acceptable, the proposal is unacceptable.

NOTES:

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Evaluator Signature and Date: _______________________________________________________________