Attachment A

> EVALUATION FACTORS

Offerors are reminded that award will be made to that offeror whose
proposal provides the combination of features that offers the best or
greatest overall value to the Government. The Government is more
concerned with obtaining performance capability superiority rather than
lowest overall price. However, the Government will not make an award at
a significantly higher overall price to the Government to achieve only
slightly superior performance. Overall price to the Government may
become the ultimate determining factor for award of a contract as
proposals become more equal based on the other factors.

The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the
prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set
forth in this RFO. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated
carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful
implementation of requirements of the RFO. Offerors must submit
information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed
criteria listed below.

# 

# 1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. Understanding the requirement

Provide a comprehensive statement of the scope and purpose of the
project to demonstrate your complete understanding of the intent and
requirements. This understanding indicates a clear comprehension and
awareness of the contract objectives.

Use as many subparagraphs as needed to outline clearly the general plan
of work with appropriate titles. Describe in detail the methodologies
you will use for the project, indicating your level of experience with
each, and any unusual expenses you anticipate.

Offerors shall include a discussion of anticipated or potential
difficulties and problem areas with recommended approaches for their
resolution.

B. Education and Demonstrated Experience of Interpreters

Interpreters must meet the mandatory minimum requirements as enumerated
in the Statement of Work (SOW). Resumes for all interpreters identified
for the on-site or pool positions must be included. The resume must be
complete, including the competency areas of certificates and the dates
awarded, type and field of education degrees and the years earned,
aggregate interpreting experience in the settings that are found in the
SOW that relates to the requirements, and any other relevant information
that will be used to determine the qualifications of the proposed
interpreters.

The individuals proposed for the on-site interpreting position must
possess the required skills for both non-technical and technical
interpreting settings.

C. Demonstrated Ability to Coordinate Services

The On-Site Interpreter/Interpreter Coordinator will be expected to
accept verbal, written, or electronic requests (facsimiles, request
letters, phone, or through the Internet request system) from anyone at
NASA Headquarters or Goddard Space Flight Center who requires
interpreting services. The Contractor will need to assess the needs for
interpreting services, and schedule and coordinate interpreters for
various assignments. The Contractor should include for evaluation
purposes proven ability and related experiences in the coordination of
interpreting services requests, plus any evaluations that have been
received.

For the Interpreter Coordinator, formal education and/or work experience
with people who are Deaf or hard-of-hearing is required. Knowledge of
the variety of communication modes and diversity of cultures within the
Deaf and hard-of-hearing community and skill in American Sign Language,
as well as computer proficiency is required.

# 2. PAST PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and
NFS 1815.305(a)(2), "Past Performance evaluation". The approach to
evaluating past performance is provided below in accordance with FAR
15.305(a)(2).

One of the following adjectival ratings will be assigned:

Excellence, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor

However, offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for
whom information on past performance is not available, will not be
evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Refer to FAR
15.305(a)(2)(iv).

Past performance will include the following specific areas established
for this procurement in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(B).

By past performance, NASA means the Contractor's record of conforming to
specifications and to standards of good workmanship; the Contractor's
adherence to contract schedules including the administrative aspects of
performance; the Contractor's reputation for reasonable and cooperative
behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the
Contractor's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.
Each Contractor will be evaluated on its performance under contracts for
similar services: Performance on contracts other than those for the
Federal Government will be rated and valued on the same basis as
performance on Federal contracts.

The Government will evaluate a Contractor's past performance. Evaluation
of past performance will be based on performance documentation or any
other pertinent information available. It will not be based solely on
information provided by the Contractor. Nor will it be based solely on
any experience that NASA has had with the Contractor in the past.

Through recommendations, related experience, past performance and
evaluations, and information included in the proposal and the
interpreters' and coordinator's resumes, both the Contractor and the
interpreters must demonstrate a clear ability and skill in providing
customer service to all persons needing assistance from the contract.

# 3. PRICE EVALUATION

In accordance with Clause 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options, proposed
prices will be evaluated inclusive of options. To be considered
responsive to this solicitation, the offeror shall offer fixed unit
prices for all items listed for the basic contract period and each
separate option period.

If the Contractor chooses, it can provide a multi-tiered pricing
structure to reflect such factors as time between the request and the
service date, on-site vs. \"back-up\" interpreters, or any other factors
that influence the determination of prices. The prices submitted will be
taken into consideration for comparison with other proposals.

# 4. ENHANCED CAPABILITIES

The Best Value factors include but are not limited to the technical
capability of interpreters, company resources, stability of the
organizational interpreting staff, availability of interpreters, use of
technology in scheduling interpreters, relevant experience and past
performance, and price.

A. In addition to the above requirements, Contractors will be deemed to
have "enhanced capabilities" if they can provide proof of:

1\. Extensive \-- measured either in years, or number of contracts \--
experience with Technical or Research and Development organizations,

2\. In-house interpreting staff capability and ready to respond
immediately to last minute requests for interpreting services (as
opposed to relying on free-lance interpreters),

3\. Procedures in place that demonstrate the ability of Deaf consumers
and NASA personnel to contact interpreters immediately, e.g. text
pagers, cellular phones, etc for new or changes to assignments.