A07_-_Evaluation_Criteria_(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 – Price. 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 performance characteristics and specifications 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 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 certifications, personnel credentials, resumes 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 asses 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 1: 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 Performance Work Statement (PWS), indicate an adequate understanding of the areas set forth in the PWS, reflects the Contractor’s required actions to successfully complete all areas of the PWS, and provide the offeror’s methodology for accomplishing the work to be performed.

b) Subfactor 2: Personnel Requirements: Proposals will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s approach conforms to the personnel requirements set forth in the solicitation. The proposal shall include all information necessary to determine if the offeror’s approach conforms to personnel requirements in the solicitation. Information in the proposal is required to show that proposed personnel are available and are qualified to meet the requirments of the PWS in section C.3. This information will be used to make these determinations. If an offeror’s proposal does not clearly meet the personnel requirements contained in the solicitation, the offeror’s proposal will be assigned an “Unacceptable” rating for personnel requirements.

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 PWS. 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 twenty four (24) 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, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee-Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” 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:

Price will be evalutated based on the total proposed price, including options (if any). The Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposed rates are determined to be unreasonable or unrealistic. 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.

Template last updated 3/4/2015