Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) quote that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors: Product, Past Experience, Past Performance, Schedule, and Price. Four (4) of the evaluation factors (Product, Experience, Past Performance, Schedule,) will be grouped in a category called, “Technical Factors”. Price will be separate.

The Technical Factors as a whole (group) when combined are more important than Price.

However, Price is a major factor. Within the Technical Factor grouping, Product is markedly more important than the other factors. The other technical factors (Experience, Past

Performance, Schedule,) are considered to be equal in value.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all Technical factors. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

The Government intends to evaluate quotes and award a contract without conducting negotiations with offerors. However, in the event the Source Selection Authority (SSA) concludes conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, the Contracting

Officer will establish a Competitive Range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of quotes that would otherwise be in the Competitive Range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of quotes in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated quotes. Therefore, the offeror’s initial quote should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The quote will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFQ. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The quote will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each quote: (Award will be made to the offeror whose quote is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The technical factors may include various “elements”. Elements will not be evaluated separately, but will be utilized on the evaluation forms to facilitate a thorough review and evaluation of the factor. Where used, elements are identified herein.)

Technical Factors:

Factor 1: Product: Each offeror’s quote will be reviewed to determine the degree to which the product to be provided best meets or exceeds the desirable features outlined in the

Specification and demonstrates technical compliance with those requirements to include a complete understanding of the requirements. The criteria for the desirable features is identified in

Section C.

Elements for Factor 1 – Product:

The Offeror shall include the following in his quote:

1. Narrative descriptions of the proposed operation, performance, materials of construction and all design features specified in Section C of this solicitation for each winch, with emphasis upon those features that demonstrate safety, durability, performance, and reliability for its intended service.

2. A scaled drawing of the components offered.

3. Any certification and/or standards that the products meet.

4. Bill of Materials for major components.

5. Approximate component weight and dimensions.

6. Performance data, cross-sectional drawings, photographs, video, test results, operational procedures, installation instructions, periodic maintenance requirements and any other information germane to the performance and quality of this product.

The offeror shall identify a warranty that is at minimum two years in length from the date of delivery. The warranty shall cover all components of the delivered systems, to include mechanical, structural, and vendor-supplied electrical and pneumatic components. The warranty shall also cover parts, labor, and transportation costs.

Must not display any factors that violate the requirements of section C.

Factor 2: Past Experience: Each offeror’s quote will be reviewed to determine the overall capability demonstrated by the offeror past exeperience.

Elements for Factor 2 – Past Experience:

The offeror shall provide a list of his past experience associated with the design of the proposed winches or similarly designed winches over the past three years. List shall include scope of supply, sizes, and customer point of contact. The list shall also include the past experience of all proposed sub-contractors, including the gear reducer manufacturer.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's quote. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s quote meets the Technical factor requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Quote meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Quote meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Quote contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Quote Quote does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The quote has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Quote l is unawardable.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and to assess confidence in performance.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required contract.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their quote. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its quote will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its quote and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past five years, from the issue date of this RFQ, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFQ.

The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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.

(ii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance

Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Factor 4: Schedules:

SCHEDULES

The offeror shall provide a schedule defining the following milestones:

1. Winches assembled at Contractor’s facility

2. Final inspection

3. Delivery

The schedule provided by the offeror shall illustrate to the Government that the offeror can meet the date or dates proposed by the offeror.

Price Factor:

Factor 5: Price: The contract will be a fixed price contract. This solicitation will only require pricing to be provided. As a result, a Price Analysis will be conducted to determine Price

Reasonableness.

The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. Should the

Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

The RFQ requires a firm-fixed-priced contract line item. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” is not occurring. Indications of potential underbidding should be reflected in the Price Evaluation Committee (PEC) report.

Offers found to be unreasonably high or unrealistically low (an indication of “buy –in”) may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

Overall:

During evaluations of each quote, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.