A22 - Attachment J-4 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award - 10 Oct. 2023.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

10 October 2023

M.1 Most Highly Qualified Introduction:

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for the Coralville Lake Ranger Building and Admin Repairs contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the

Government’s requirement defined herein.

M.1.1 Phase I Evaluation Ratings Assignment:

The Government will evaluate all proposals received against General and Administrative Qualifying

Criteria (Factor 1). Those that “Pass” the General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria evaluation will then be evaluated against the Specialized Experience (Factor 2). All General and Administrative

Qualifying Criteria will be evaluated on a pass or fail basis. If an Offeror is evaluated as “Fail” for Factor

1, then they will be removed from further consideration for award. A Combined Technical/Risk rating will be used to evaluate Factor 2.

M.1.2 Phase I Factor Evaluation Matrix:

Evaluation Item Factors Evaluation

General and Administrative

Qualifying Criteria

Factor 1 Pass/Fail

Specialized Experience Factor 2 Combined Technical/Risk

Rating

M.1.3 Phase I Evaluation Scales

M.1.3.1 Factor 1 Evaluation Scale:

The General Administrative and Qualifying Criteria (Factor 1) will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

Rating Description

Pass Proposal meets all stated requirements for this

Factor.

Fail Proposal fails to meet all stated requirements for this Factor.

M.1.3.2 Factor 2 Evaluation Scale:

The Specialized Experience Criteria (Factor 2) will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Deficiencies and weaknesses, referred to in the above description ratings, are defined as set forth show in the Evaluation Findings Definition Table below. This is a combined Technical/Risk rating. As such, the level of risk to unsuccessful performance will be assigned per the color rating definitions contained within the above table, and not given a separate rating. For example, a proposal can be low risk and still receive a purple or green rating; or a proposal may have multiple strengths, but be assessed to have high risk resulting in a yellow rating. The Specialized Experience (Factor 2) will be evaluated based upon the following evaluation finding definitions:

Evaluation Findings Definitions

Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a

Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

M.1.4 Phase I Overall Evaluation and Rating

The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of evaluation factor 2. The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and required clarifications. After all proposals are evaluated and rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies of proposals against each other in order to determine which

Offerors are the most highly qualified under Phase I to participate in Phase II.

M.1.5 Phase II Evaluations

The Government will provide Phase II evaluation information via a RFP Amendment.

(End of Section M)