Evaluation Criteria 101

1
Evaluation Criteria 101

• AMC Committee Symposium
• November 8, 2004

2
Definition

• Evaluate
• to determine or fix the value or worth of
• to determine the significance, worth or condition
  of, usually by careful appraisal and study
• Criterion
• a standard on which a judgment or decision may be
  based
• a characterizing mark or trait

3
Scope of Workshop

• Includes - FAR Part 15
• Does not include
• FAR Part 9
• FAR Part 19
• NIH Factors for Clinical Trials

4
Evaluation CriteriaPurpose/Objectives

• Why Evaluation Criteria?

5
Evaluation CriteriaPurpose/Objectives

• From the Offerors Perspective
• What are the rules?
• What is important to the Government?
• From the Governments Perspective
• So that competition might be served
• Does the offeror have what the NIH wants?
• Which offeror will most likely provide the best
  value?

6
Defining Factors FAR 15.304 Requirements

• Award decision is based on evaluation factors and
  significant subfactors
• Factors and significant subfactors must -
• represent key areas of importance emphasis
• support meaningful comparisons among proposals

7
Defining FactorsFAR 15.304 Requirements
(continued)

• Agencies have broad discretion in determining
• evaluation factors and subfactors that apply to a
  given acquisition
• the relative importance of those factors
• But see exceptions . . .

8

Defining FactorsFAR 15.304 - Exceptions to
Agency Discretion

• 1. Price/Cost
• 2. Quality (non-cost factors, such as, past
  performance, compliance with solicitation
  requirements, technical excellence)
• 3. Past Performance on -
• a. negotiated competitive actions expected to
  exceed
• 100,000, unless the CO documents the
  reason it is
• not an appropriate factor
• b. SB participation under subcontracting
  plans (bundled
• requirements with significant sub
  opportunity)

9
Defining FactorsFAR 15.304 -Exceptions to Agency
Discretion (continued)

• 4. Extent of SDB Participation on
• - unrestricted acquisitions expected to
  exceed
• 500,000/1,000,000 for construction
• 5. Proposed SB subcontracting participation in
  the
• Subcontracting Plan on
• - solicitations involving bundling that
  offer a
• significant opportunity for subcontracting

10
Common Mistakes in Developing Evaluation Factors

• Too many factors
• Too few factors
• Heavy weights for one or more factors
• Light weights for one or more factors
• Relative importance of factors does not support
  planned selection strategy

11
Developing the Solicitation FAR 15.304 and FAR
15.305

• The Solicitation must
• State all factors and subfactors and their
  relative importance
• Explain the approach for evaluating past
  performance, including evaluating offers with no
  relevant performance history. Provide offerors
  an opportunity to
• identify past or current contracts for similar
  efforts
• provide information on problems encountered and
  corrective actions

12
Evaluating ProposalsFAR 15.305

• Use any rating method or combination of methods
  (color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights,
  and ordinal rankings)
• Assess relative qualities solely on the factors
  and subfactors specified in the solicitation

13
Evaluating Proposals FAR 15.305 (continued)

• Conduct past performance evaluation in accordance
  with FAR 15.305(a)(2)
• Document relative strengths, deficiencies,
  significant weaknesses, and risks.

14
Evaluating Proposals FAR 15.305 (continued)

• Document the cost or price evaluation
• When tradeoffs are performed, records shall
  include
• -- an assessment of each offerors ability
  to
• accomplish the technical requirements
  and
• -- a summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking,
  along
• with appropriate supporting narrative,
  of each
• technical proposal using the
  evaluation factors.

15

A Word or Two from the Comp. Gen.
16
What the Comp. Gen. Wont Do

• The GAO will not reevaluate the vendors
  submissions, assuming agency acted properly.
• Shumaker Trucking Excavating Contractors, Inc.,
  B-290732, September 25, 2002
• The GAO will not disturb an agency determination
  concerning cost realism, unless it lacks a
  reasonable basis.
• Moshman Associates, Inc. - B-192008, January 16,
  1979.

17
What the Comp. Gen. Wont Do

• GAO will not object to award where scoring
  approach used does not produce an irrational
  result.
• First Ann Arbor Corporation, B-194519 - March 4,
  1990
• GAO will not sustain a protest unless offeror is
  prejudiced.
• Leisure -Lift, Inc., B-291878.3 B-292448.2 -
  September 28, 2003

18
What You Should Do

• Inform offerors, via amendment, of any change in
  evaluation criteria/methodology
• - Umpqua - B-199014, 4/3/81
• Evaluate proposals according to the factors and
  in the manner stated in the RFP
• - Lockheed Martin Corporation - B-293679
  B-293679.2 B-293679.3, May 27, 2004
• - Computer Information Specialist, Inc. -
  B-293949, B-293949.2, 1/23/04
• Adequately document the reasons for evaluation
  conclusions
• - Future-Tec Mgmt. Sys, Inc.B-283793.5,
  3/20/00

19
Any Questions?
20
Presented By

• Mary B. Armstead
• Procurement Analyst
• NIH Business System
• Democracy II/Room 1001A
• Telephone Number 301-439-1939
• E-mail address ma19d_at_nih.gov