UPDATED_Evaluation Factor Rating Descriptions and Socring Matrix.docx

EVALUATION FACTOR RATING DESCRIPTIONS AND SCORING MATRIX

PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE:

· SUPERIOR past performance and experience is demonstrated by exceptionally relevant past performance references over the last 5 years AND information from completed Past Performance Surveys (and/or as discussed with the provided customer reference) involves SUPERIOR ratings for a large majority of the following areas: Quality, Delivery/Efficiency/Rework, Cost/Price Control, and Overall Performance. There are no deficiencies or significant weaknesses that would present a risk to the Government of detrimental or failed performance.

· GOOD past performance and experience is demonstrated by very relevant past performance references over the last 5 years AND information from completed Past Performance Surveys (and/or as discussed with the provided customer reference) involves GOOD ratings for a majority of the following areas: Quality, Delivery/Efficiency/Rework, Cost/Price Control, and Overall Performance. There are no deficiencies but the past performance information may contain a few minor weaknesses that present negligible risk of detrimental or failed performance. A GOOD rating may also be assigned, even in the event that the Past Performance Surveys involve a large majority of Superior ratings, if the past performances are determined to lack some degree of relevance.

· MODERATE past performance and experience is demonstrated by slightly relevant past performance references over the last 5 years AND information from completed Past Performance Surveys (and/or as discussed with the provided customer reference) involves MODERATE ratings for a majority of the following areas: Quality, Delivery/Efficiency/Rework, Cost/Price Control, and Overall Performance). There are few, if any strengths, provided in the past performance information that would benefit the program and there are a number of deficiencies. There is an average probability of success with increased risk of detrimental or failed performance.

· POOR past performance and experience is demonstrated by at least slightly relevant past performance references over the last 5 years AND information from completed Past Performance Surveys (and/or as discussed with the provided customer reference) involves POOR ratings for a majority of the following areas: Quality, Delivery/Efficiency/Rework, Cost/Price Control, and Overall Performance). There is no reasonable likelihood of success; past performance information represents extreme risk of failed performance.

PROJECT METHODOLOGY AND CAPACITY

· The SUPERIOR Project Methodology discussion demonstrates an exceptionally thorough, exceptionally insightful and exceptionally comprehensive overall understanding of the requirements detailed in the Schedule of Work (SOW). The discussion provides an exceptionally clear and exceptionally thorough demonstration of the contractor’s ability to provide exceptional performance for all contract requirements. The SUPERIOR Capacity discussion provides exceptionally clear, exceptionally thorough and exceptionally detailed information regarding the contractor’s ability to timely deploy resources; their ability to successfully perform relevant projects; and their ability to perform multiple task orders simultaneously. There are major strengths and exceptional features that should substantially benefit the program. There are no deficiencies or significant weaknesses that would present a risk to the Government of detrimental or failed performance.

· The GOOD Project Methodology discussion demonstrates a thorough, insightful and comprehensive overall understanding of the requirements detailed in the SOW. The discussion provides a clear and thorough demonstration of the contractor’s ability to provide good performance for all contract requirements. The GOOD Capacity discussion provides clear, thorough and detailed information regarding the contractor’s ability to timely deploy resources; their ability to successfully perform relevant projects; and their ability to perform multiple task orders simultaneously. There are minor strengths and features that should substantially benefit the program. There are no deficiencies but the proposal may contain minor weaknesses that present negligible risk of detrimental or failed performance.

· The MODERATE Project Methodology discussion demonstrates only an adequate overall understanding of the requirements detailed in the SOW. The discussion provides only an adequate demonstration of the contractor’s ability to provide sufficient performance for all contract requirements. The MODERATE capacity discussion provides only an adequate amount of information regarding the contractor’s ability to timely deploy resources; their ability to successfully perform relevant projects; and their ability to perform multiple task orders simultaneously. There are few, if any, strengths and features that would benefit the program. There are deficiencies and/or a combination of significant weaknesses that constitute a deficiency. There is an average probability of success and the proposal may not be viable without clarifying exchanges with the contractor. Contract award may still be considered, however.

· The POOR Project Methodology discussion provides inadequate, conflicting and/or confusing information which does not adequately demonstrate an overall understanding of the requirements detailed in the SOW. The contractor provides inadequate, conflicting and/or confusing information which does not adequately demonstrate its ability to provide performance for all contract requirements. The POOR capacity discussion provides inadequate, conflicting and/or confusing information regarding the contractor’s ability to timely deploy resources; their ability to successfully perform relevant projects; and their ability to perform multiple task orders simultaneously. The submittal lacks essential information or is conflicting and unproductive. There is a significant lack of understanding of the requirements. There is no reasonable likelihood of success; represents extreme risk of failed performance; and deficiencies are so major or extensive that a major revision tantamount to a complete rewrite of the submittal would be necessary

KEY PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT

· SUPERIOR Key Personnel and Equipment submittals include exceptionally clear information regarding the qualifications of the individuals proposed as Key Personnel and equipment allocated to the project. There are major strengths and exceptional skills and qualifications of the proposed Key Personnel that should substantially benefit the program. The equipment list illustrates a thorough understanding and ability to accomplish the work. There are no deficiencies in skills and qualifications or necessary equipment that would present a risk to the Government of detrimental or failed performance.

· GOOD Key Personnel and Equipment submittals include clear information regarding the qualifications of the individuals proposed as Key Personnel and equipment allocated to the project. There are strengths of the proposed Key Personnel that should benefit the program. The equipment list illustrates an understanding and ability to accomplish the work. There are no deficiencies but the proposed may contain minor weaknesses that present negligible risk of detrimental or failed performance.

· MODERATE Key Personnel and Equipment submittals include only an adequate amount of information regarding the qualifications of the individuals proposed as Key Personnel and equipment allocated to the project. There are few, if any, strengths and features that would benefit the program. There are deficiencies and/or a combination of significant weaknesses that constitute a deficiency. There is an average probability of success and the submittal may not be viable without clarifying exchanges with the contractor. Award of a contract may still be considered, however.

· POOR Key Personnel and Equipment submittals provide inadequate, conflicting and/or confusing information regarding the qualifications of the individuals proposed as Key Personnel and equipment. The submittal lacks essential information or is conflicting and unproductive. There is a significant lack of understanding of the requirements. There is no reasonable likelihood of success; represents extreme risk of failed performance; and deficiencies are so major or extensive that a major revision tantamount to a complete rewrite of the submittal would be necessary.

GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY

· A SUPERIOR rating will be assigned for a company with all key personnel and equipment located in the Ranger District.

· A GOOD rating will be assigned for a company with most key personnel and equipment located in the Ranger District.

· A MODERATE rating will be assigned for a company with some key personnel and equipment located within 100 miles of the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF). A moderate rating could be considered if the company does not have key personnel or equipment located in strategically beneficial locations if an explanation of mitigating factors is provided.

· A POOR rating will be assigned for a company with no key personnel or equipment located within 100 miles of the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) and there is no mention of mitigating factors in the proposal.

PRICE

· A SUPERIOR rating will be assigned to the lowest cost, technically acceptable proposal.

· A GOOD rating will be assigned to the next forty percent lowest cost, technically acceptable proposals.

· A MODERATE rating will be assigned to the remaining proposals.

· A POOR rating will be assigned for unrealistic or highest cost proposals.

SCORING MATRIX: