# Presentation: 017573

## Evaluation Criteria 101 

**AMC Committee Symposium **
**November 8, 2004**

## 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

## Scope of Workshop

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

## Evaluation CriteriaPurpose/Objectives

*Why Evaluation Criteria?*

## Evaluation CriteriaPurpose/Objectives

**From the Offeror’s Perspective**
- What are the rules?
- What is important to the Government?
**From the Government’s Perspective**
- So that competition might be served
- Does the offeror have what the NIH wants?
- Which offeror will most likely provide the best value?

## 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

## Defining FactorsFAR 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 . . .*

- 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**)**

**Defining Factors**FAR 15.304 - Exceptions to Agency Discretion

## Defining FactorsFAR 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

## 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

## 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

## Evaluating ProposalsFAR 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

## 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.

## Evaluating Proposals FAR 15.305 (continued)

- Document the cost or price evaluation
- When tradeoffs are performed, records shall include:
-       --  an assessment of each offeror’s 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.

**A Word or Two from the Comp. Gen****.**

## What the Comp. Gen. Won’t 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****.*

## What the Comp. Gen. Won’t 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***

## 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***

## Any Questions?

## Presented By

- Mary B. Armstead
- Procurement Analyst
- NIH Business System
- Democracy II/Room 1001A
- Telephone Number: 301-439-1939
- E-mail address: _[ma19d@nih.gov](mailto:ma19d@nih.gov)_