Selection_criteria.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The evaluation factors are (1) Technical, (2) Past/Present Performance and (3) Price. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past/Present Performance, Technical and

Price as set out in the solicitation. In terms of the relative importance of the factors, the Technical factor is somewhat more important than Present/ Past Performance and when combined however, the non-cost factors are approximately equal to the Price Factor. The firm that represents the best value to the Government will be selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.1 Source Selection Processes and Techniques.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR RATINGS:

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. This is a combined rating that includes risk associated with the technical approach in a single rating.

Ratings will be assigned at the subfactor level as well as an overall factor level rating. Based on evaluation results, the Government will assign a technical rating for each of the five (5) subfactors as well as the overall technical proposal. The subfactors will be rated in descending order of importance with Subfactor 1, Experience and

Capability being the most important. An offer which fails to provide information in any of the specified areas may be deemed incomplete, and eliminated from the competition and ineligible for further consideration for award.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate. Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance and normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable. Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Plans and Specifications. The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consist of a “relevancy” rating and a “confidence” rating. Although there are subfactors listed below, the “confidence” ratings will be at the factor level only.

The following apply to weighting relevancy considering all the elements listed above;

VERY RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT- Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.