EvaluationCriteria(LPTA).doc

Evaluation Criteria

(Lowest Price Technically Acceptable)

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and has the lowest evaluated price of all offers meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-price factors. All non-price factors and sub-factors will be evaluated as “Acceptable/GO” or “Unacceptable/NO GO”. There are three (3) Evaluation Factors: Factor I-Technical; Factor II- Past Performance; Factor III-Cost. The Technical sub-factors are considered GO/NO GO. If the offeror’s proposal does not meet any of the requirements in Factor I, they will be immediately removed from contention for award. In order for an offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable/GO” rating for all non-price factors.

Technical:

The technical acceptability factor of the evaluation will be a determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal meets the Salient Characteristics in the solicitation. There are many aspects which may affect an offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements and these aspects will be included as sub-factors of technical rating factor; to include technical approach, corporate experience, and personnel requirements. The Technical element of the evaluation shall be based solely on information furnished by the offeror. The Government is not responsible for locating or securing any information, which is not identified in the proposal. To ensure sufficient information is available, vendors must furnish, as part of their proposal, all descriptive material (such as cuts, illustrations, drawings, certifications, personnel credentials, or other information) necessary for the Government to determine if the offeror’s approach meets the performance characteristics and specifications of the solicitation. In a case where an offeror fails to provide enough information to determine their proposal meets the performance characteristics and specifications in the solicitation, a technically “Unacceptable/NO GO” rating will be assigned. The evaluation team will assess the offeror’s proposal against this requirement to determine whether the proposal is “Acceptable/GO” or “Unacceptable/NO GO”, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table A.

Table A – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

a) Subfactor I: Technical Approach: Proposals will be evaluated to determine if the technical approach conforms to the performance requirements set forth in the solicitation. Offerors’ proposals shall address each portion of the Salient Characteristics and indicate an adequate understanding of the areas set forth in the Solicitation.

b) Subfactor 2: Corporate Experience: Proposals will be evaluated to determine if offerors meet the minimum corporate experience required in performing efforts of similar size and scope. Corporate experience is defined as the offeror’s experience in the area of Thermal Diffusivity & Thermal Conductivity Measurement Systems as a corporation, not individual personnel experience. In order to be considered for award, an offeror must have twelve (12) months of continuous, recent, and relevant experience selling Thermal Diffusivity & Thermal Conductivity Measurement Systems that is the same as or similar to, the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the work described by this solicitation. If an offeror fails to meet any of these criteria, they will be assigned an “Unacceptable” rating for experience.

Past Performance:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past performance and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required effort of the Salient Characteristics. This assessment will be based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. “Relevant” is defined as the offeror’s performance of a requirement(s) of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity as compared to the current requirement. “Recent” is defined as an offeror’s performance of a requirement(s) within the past twelve (12) months. The past performance information will be reviewed to determine how well the offeror performed during the previous effort(s).

Sources of past performance are as follows:

· Past performance information may be provided by the offeror

· Past performance information will be obtained from any other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee-Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency

Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable/GO” or “Unacceptable/NO GO” basis using the ratings in Table B.

Table B – Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

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)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Price:

It is the intention of the Government to award a Firm Fixed Price contract. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposed rates are determined to be unreasonable or unrealistic. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for this fixed priced effort on the basis of the competitive offerors received in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Price will be evaluated based on the total proposed price, including options. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), or that the offeror does not have an understanding of the requirement due to the unrealistically low price proposed, this will be considered a performance risk at which time the Government may remove the offeror from contention for award. If there is no relevant pricing competition, the Government will utilize aspects of FAR Part 15.404-1 to make a fair and reasonable price determination.

Template last updated 3/4/2015