Evaluation_Criteria.docx

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD- Dental Treatment

General: The evaluation process consists of three parts: proposal compliance review; past performance evaluation; and technical and price evaluation. The non-cost factors are significantly more important than price.

Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial check by the Contracting Officer (KO) on compliance with the solicitation requirements. This review may eliminate those proposals that fail to provide complete proposal requirements.

Past Performance: Past performance evaluations are required from 5 of the offeror’s customers. Customers are to send the past performance evaluations directly to the KO, LTC Laura L. Monteith, at Laura.L.Monteith.mil@mail.mil. Offeror must ensure that 5 past performance evaluations are provided. The Government will evaluate the quality, timeliness, and management of the vendor's past performance considering currency, relevancy, sources, context, and trends on recent (within the last three (3) years) work performed under the existing or previous contracts. Also, evaluations available from any source including Government-wide databases may be used.

Technical Proposal Evaluation: There are two subfactors in the evaluation and ratings will be at the subfactor level. Subfactor 1, Project Management and Cabibility, will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. If rated unacceptable an offeror will be eliminated from the competition and not further evaluated, unless the KO determines discussions are necessary and it is in the Government’s interest to place the offeror in the competitive range and allow a proposal revision after discussions. A quality rating will be given for Subfactor 2, Technical Approach, and the overall technical proposal. Ratings follow the explanation of the technical rating process. Both subfactors will be evaluated on adequacy of response and feasibility of approach.

Adequacy of Response: The proposal 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 solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror's methods and approach to meeting the solicitation requirements provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful performance of the requirements. An assessment of the degree of confidence provided by the proposed approaches/methods will also be included. In the event that enhancements are proposed, the enhancements will be evaluated to determine whether the approach taken is feasible and will result in a service that fully meets or exceeds the RFP requirements.

Subfactor 1, Project Management and Capability: This evaluation considers the qualifications and experience of personnel and the management approach to ensuring quality work. The evaluation will be based on evaluators’ rating for the extent and adequacy of the offeror’s understanding and conformance of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Emphasis will be placed on offeror's understanding and compliance with concepts of the PWS. Contractors must have a full comprehension of Dental Readiness Classifications (DRCs) in order to provide services to OHARNG Soldiers. Vendor must be proficient with DENCLASS. Offerors who are receive an “Unacceptable” rating in any part of the Project Management and Capability subfactor will be removed from further consideration for award.

Subfactor 2, Technical Approach: This evaluation includes the written technical proposal. Ratings follow the explanation of the technical rating process.

Technical 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.

Price Evaluation: The Government will conduct a price/cost evaluation of each offeror's proposal to determine whether or not each proposal complies with the stated criteria: reasonableness, realism and affordability.

Reasonableness: An offeror's proposal is evaluated through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a) (1) and (4). For cost (price) to be reasonable, it must represent a cost (price) that provides value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market, the technical and functional capabilities of the offeror and risk. When evaluating price evaluators will also check for the appearance of unbalanced costs.

Realism: Will be evaluated by assessing the compatibility of proposed costs with proposal scope and effort. For cost (price) to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort if the offeror operates with reasonable economy and efficiency. Proposals unrealistically high or low in price when compared to the government estimate may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in proposal rejection without discussion. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between proposed performance and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an unbalanced/inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price realism rests solely with the offeror.

Affordability: The Government wishes to procure the highest quality services meeting or exceeding the requirements and criteria established in the RFP at a reasonable cost (price).