NOAALink Evaluation Criteria Mar 2012 by oF7cP4M

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 13

									     U.S. Department of Commerce
NOAA Office of the Chief Information Officer
             NOAALink Program




                         NOAALink Program Office
                                    Task Order [#]
                              [Title of Document]

                                            [Date]
                                                                                           Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                                            Version 1.0


                                   EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS
The Task Manager (TM) shall provide the names and contact information for those individuals assigned to evaluate
proposals from Offerors. Evaluation Team Members must be designated to evaluate the Technical Approach and Past
Performance prior to submission of this Evaluation Criteria document so the NOAALink Program Office may send
proposals directly to the TM and Evaluation Team Members. Please note that Technical and Past Performance Evaluators
may include the same team members.

       Technical Evaluators
       Name                      Email                     Main Phone                Organization


       Past Performance Evaluators
       Name                   Email                        Main Phone                Organization




                                                                                                                Page 1
                                                                                                    Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                                                     Version 1.0


                                           EVALUATION CRITERIA

The TM is expected to fill in the table below to develop the evaluation criteria against which the Offeror’s proposals shall
be evaluated. The table below shall consist of Key/Major area(s) and/or objectives from the PWS, the specific
instructions to the Offeror and what the evaluation team will use to assess the validity of each proposal. Below is a
sample of what should be completed.

    Major PWS Area/Objective        Instructions to Offeror                   Evaluation Criteria




 Technical: IT Support             The Offeror shall          Proposal includes information that demonstrates
                                   present                    extensive knowledge of the Specific technology
                                                              1, 2, 3, n. In most areas the vendor exceeds the
                                                              Government’s stated requirements in a manner
                                                              beneficial to the Government.
 Technical: IT Support             The Offeror shall          Proposal shows an understanding and
                                   present its approach       methodology in completing the PWS
                                   to perform the work        requirements.
                                   and implement
                                   innovative solutions
                                   contemplated in the
                                   PWS.

 Management: Program               The Offeror shall          Proposal demonstrates an effective staffing
 Management Support                address key                approach (e.g., hiring, training, transition and
                                   personnel, their           retention) and the ability to provide qualified
                                   proposed                   personnel (i.e., Specific certifications) to
                                   responsibilities and       support the PWS requirements.
                                   time commitment to
                                   the project.
 Management: Program                                          Proposal provides appropriate project
 Management Support                                           management methods to support the PWS.


 Past Performance                  The Offeror shall          Proposal demonstrates vendor’s corporate
                                   address past               experience and qualifications. The vendor’s
                                   performance                past performance will be evaluated based on the
                                   depicting contracts        information received from references, and any
                                   where relevant             past performance questionnaires or information
                                   experience exists.         which may be obtained by the Government from
                                                              sources other than those identified by the
                                                              respondent, including the Contractor
                                                              Performance System (CPS) and the Past
                                                              Performance Information Retrieval System
                                                              (PPIRS). Vendors that do not have past
                                                              performance will not be evaluated favorably or
                                                              unfavorably, but will be rated as “neutral”.


                                                                                                                         Page 2
                                                                                                  Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                                                   Version 1.0


                                    EVALUATION CRITERIA FORMS
Each member of the Evaluation Team will read each NOAALink Task Order proposal in its entirety prior to rating. This
responsibility cannot be shared among evaluators or other parties. The security of NOAALink Task Order proposals is
very important during evaluation. Make sure to always keep evaluations safe and out of sight. It is also important that all
team members must not discuss the evaluation with anyone outside of the Evaluation Team.

Each proposal will be evaluated on the basis set forth in the Evaluation Criteria to determine the Offeror that represents
the best overall value to the Government, cost and non-cost factors combined. The Evaluation Team members should read
the Performance Work Statement (PWS) (attached) to familiarize themselves with what was requested from the Offeror,
the evaluation factors, and ranking instructions. After each evaluation team member has evaluated each Offeror’s proposal
and assigned an adjectival score for each factor; the chairperson will then review each evaluator’s rating sheets to ensure
completeness. Irregularities will be brought to the attention of individual members for resolution. The chairperson will
confer with the team to combine all adjectival scores for each factor to determine a consensus adjectival rating per factor
per Offeror. They will then be listed in ranked order and a recommendation of viability made.

The chairperson shall retain the individual evaluator scoring sheets as well as the consensus rating sheet, and submit the
final Evaluation Report, with sheets, to the Contracting Officer (CO). The CO will review the report, and inconsistent or
unsubstantiated data will be returned to the chairperson for coordination and correction. Solely based upon the results of
the scoring, viable Offeror will be notified.




                                                                                                                       Page 3
                                                                                                      Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                                                       Version 1.0




                                             Definitions used for Evaluation

Offeror: The vendor/contractor whose proposals is being evaluated.

Chairperson: The Evaluation team lead.

Evaluation Team: Evaluation Team members identify (a mapping to specific citations and references in the PWS and the
Offeror’s solution by page number) and document the benefit and impact of specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies,
and risk. Evaluation Team members also apply Evaluation Adjectival Ratings for each Offeror’s Factor and Sub-Factor.
Evaluation Team members may also identify and document any Other Relevant Comments that relate to minor
irregularities, informalities, omissions, clerical mistakes, and other items in an Offeror’s proposal beyond what is required
in the PWS.

Standard Factors/Sub-Factors: Proposals must give clear, detailed information sufficient to enable evaluation of each
factor. Below are the standard Factors and Sub-Factors (additional Factors/Sub-Factors may be used to evaluate specific
requirements):

       Factor                                                      Sub-Factor
       Technical                                                   Technical Approach (How the work will be performed)

                                                                   Management Approach (How the work will be managed)
       Past Performance


Scoring Philosophy: An assessment of a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks is one of the most
critical elements in the evaluation and selection process. Consider the following when documenting these areas of each
proposal.

    1. Strengths must be tied to a benefit to NOAA requirements, mission or performance. Strength relates to a benefit
       to the government that reduces the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
    2. Weaknesses must be tied to an impact to NOAA requirements, mission or performance. Weakness means a flaw
       in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the
       proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
    3. Deficiencies relate to an inability to meet requirements. A deficiency is a proposal’s failure to meet a Government
       requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases risk of unsuccessful contract performance
       to an unacceptable level.
    4. Risks are defined in terms of the degree of uncertainty introduced by the Offeror’s proposal. Risks can be tied to
       schedule, cost, or performance.

Evaluation Team Process: Each team member independently reads and evaluates each proposal using the Evaluation
criteria. Proposals are evaluated using the Evaluation forms for each Offeror. Each evaluator submits their completed
rating sheets to the Evaluation Team’s chairperson.

Technical Adjectival Rating Descriptions: the evaluation ratings for the technical factor of an evaluation as described
below:

 Adjectival Rating                 Adjectival Rating Description


                                                                                                                           Page 4
                                                                                           Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                                            Version 1.0
                 Proposed approach has many deficiencies of proposed approach is totally
Unsatisfactory   without merit, Risk of failure is unacceptable.
                 Proposed Approach has deficiencies or significant weaknesses, but is capable
                 of improvement to acceptable or better without adoption of new approach.
                 Risk of failure is high but can be mitigated with improvements to proposal.
Marginal
                 Proposed approach fully meets requirement and has some superior features
                 with no deficiency or significant weakness. Risk of failure is moderate.
Satisfactory
                 Proposed approach fully meets requirement and has some superior features
                 with no deficiency or significant weakness. Risk of failure is low.
Good
                 Proposed approach fully meets requirement and is superior in many features
Outstanding      with no deficiency or weakness. Risk of failure is very low.




                                                                                                                Page 5
                                                                                                              Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                                                               Version 1.0


Past Performance Adjectival Rating: the evaluation ratings for the Past Performance factor of an evaluation as
described below:


 Adjectival Rating               Adjectival Rating Description
                                 No current and/or relevant performance record is identifiable upon which
                                 to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. A search was unable to
                                 identify any relevant Past Performance information for the Offeror or key
                                 team members/subcontractors or their key personnel. This is neither a
                                 negative or positive assessment. Unknown Risk.

 Neutral
                                 Performance did not meet contractual requirements. There were
                                 problems, some of a serious nature. Contractor's corrective action was
                                 sometimes marginally effective to ineffective. Probability of success is
                                 questionable with an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the
                                 government’s requirements.
 Marginal
                                 Performance met most contract requirements. Adequate quality.
                                 Problems were identified; however contractor usually took adequate
                                 corrective action. Performance was current and semi-relevant. Fair
                                 probability of success with a moderate degree of risk in meeting the
                                 government's requirements.
 Satisfactory
                                 Performance met contract requirements. Good quality. Minor problems
                                 were identified however; contractor took satisfactory corrective action to
                                 resolve where appropriate. Performance was current and very relevant to
                                 relevant. Good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in
                                 meeting the government's requirements.

 Good
                                 Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the
                                 Government's benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were
                                 resolved in a timely and highly effective manner. Performance was
                                 current and very relevant. Very good probability of success with overall
                                 very low degree of risk in meeting Government's requirements.

 Outstanding




                                                                                                                                   Page 6
                   Evaluation Criteria Template
                                    Version 1.0




EVALUATION FORMS




                                        Page 7
Solicitation No:   [TBD]                                 Factor:   Technical
Offeror:
Evaluator:
                                                         Sub-Factor:   Technical Approach

Specific Strengths (Relate to benefit):




Specific Weaknesses (Relate to impact):




Risks (Relate to cost, schedule, or quality):




Deficiencies (Relate to inability to perform or mission failure):




Other Relevant Comments (that relate to minor irregularities, informalities, omissions, clerical mistakes,
and other items in an Offeror’s proposal beyond what is required in the PWS)



Rating given (circle one)
Outstanding              Good             Satisfactory                 Marginal             Unsatisfactory


General notes and comments from rating source




Consensus Rating Scores – Offeror: ___________________
                                                                                  Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                                   Version 1.0


Solicitation No:   [TBD]                                 Factor:   Technical
Offeror:
Evaluator:                                               Sub-Factor:   Management Approach


Specific Strengths (Relate to benefit)




Specific Weaknesses (Relate to impact)




Risks (Relate to cost, schedule, or quality)




Deficiencies (Relate to inability to perform or mission failure)




Other Relevant Comments (that relate to minor irregularities, informalities, omissions, clerical mistakes,
and other items in an Offeror’s proposal beyond what is required in the PWS)




Rating given (circle one)
Outstanding                Good           Satisfactory                 Marginal              Unsatisfactory


General notes and comments from rating source




Consensus Rating Scores – Offeror: ___________________




                                                                                                       Page 9
                                                                                      Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                                       Version 1.0



Solicitation No:   [TBD]                                 Factor: Past   Performance
Offeror:
Evaluator:



CONTRACT INFORMATION

Contractor:
Period of Performance: From:                                     To:
Initial Contract Value:                          Final Contract Value:

Brief description of contract or task:




Complexity of Effort (Check One):        [ ] Difficult      [ ] Routine

RATER INFORMATION (Person being contacted)

Name:                                            Organization:

Telephone/FAX Nos:

Email Address:

Position Title:

Length of Involvement in Contract:

Past Performance Elements

1. Quality of Products or Services, Compliance with contract requirements, and technical excellence




2. Dependability




3. Timeliness of Performance




                                                                                                          Page 10
                                                                           Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                            Version 1.0


4. Cost Control, Budget Restraint and Efficiency




5. Customer Satisfaction at End of Service




6. Business Relations, Effective Management, Effective Subcontracting Program




Rating given (circle one)
Outstanding             Good           Satisfactory            Marginal              Neutral



General notes and comments from rating source




Consensus Rating Scores – Offeror: ___________________




[Reviewer Name]                        Date                                               Date
Evaluation Team Member                                Evaluation Team Chairperson




                                                                                               Page 11
                                                                         Evaluation Criteria Template
                                                                                          Version 1.0




FINAL OVERALL CONSENSUS RATING: _______________________________


       EVALUATION CONSENSUS RATING SCORES OF ALL OFFERORS HIGHEST
                     RATED/AWARD RECOMMENDATION

    Individual Offeror Final Overall Consensus Rating (Listed in the Highest to Lowest Score)


       Offeror                                             Overall Consensus Score




HIGHEST RATED: __________________________


RECOMMEND AWARD TO: __________________________________


Based on (provide thorough analysis)




                                                                                             Page 12

								
To top