Evaluation Criteria

duke38,

Let me ask you a question. Do you want to evaluate an offeror's ability to perform IT services or do you want to evaluate an offeror's ability to write an essay?

duke38,

Let me ask you a question. Do you want to evaluate an offeror's ability to perform IT services or do you want to evaluate an offeror's ability to write an essay?

We are trying to avoid the offeror just copying whats in the PWS and provide us with a good outline of their technical capabilities. We definetely do not want just an essay.

duke38,

What makes you think that an offeror's ability to produce a written document outlining its technical capabilities is indicative of their ability to perform IT services? Why not base your decision on verifiable information (i.e., like experience and past performance) instead of an offeror's predictions about what its "approach" will be to perform IT services?

There's an army of talented proposal writers out there that are ready to play your game. The best ones know what your evaluators like to read in the written technical proposals and have the skills to make offerors look better than they actually are. Intelligent offerors will hire these people (if they don't already employ them) to respond to your solicitation. You could very well end up favoring an offeror who submitted a well-written technical proposal over an offeror who didn't, but that was more capable of providing IT services. Why put yourself in that situation?

duke38,

What makes you think that an offeror's ability to produce a written document outlining its technical capabilities is indicative of their ability to perform IT services? Why not base your decision on verifiable information (i.e., like experience and past performance) instead of an offeror's predictions about what its "approach" will be to perform IT services?

There's an army of talented proposal writers out there that are ready to play your game. The best ones know what your evaluators like to read in the written technical proposals and have the skills to make offerors look better than they actually are. Intelligent offerors will hire these people (if they don't already employ them) to respond to your solicitation. You could very well end up favoring an offeror who submitted a well-written technical proposal over an offeror who didn't, but that was more capable of providing IT services. Why put yourself in that situation?

I just noticed that I left off some of the Technical, the entire Technical looks like this:

(ii) VOLUME II ? TECHNICAL. The Offeror shall provide a detailed proposal which addresses the three Technical Subfactors as described in the following subparagraphs. As a minimum, proposal shall address the following:

(1) Section 1 ? Technical Approach

The Offeror shall describe its understanding of the requirements to be satisfied in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the method and approach to meeting the requirements.

(2) Section 2 - Staffing & Management Plan

In the Staffing & Management Plan, the Offeror shall propose personnel to include, at a minimum, those personnel responsible for the positions identified in Section 4 of the PWS, who will work on this task order, not sample or potential personnel, and shall include a statement that the proposed personnel are available within one week of the task order start date. The Staffing and Management Plan must provide a clear alignment of proposed staff to the requirements of AR 25-2. The Offeror shall provide resumes of its key personnel to include level of experience, education, certifications, technical skill, clearance level and competency of personnel assigned and their roles and responsibilities to achieve the PWS. The resumes will not be counted against the total page limitation for this Tab.

The plan must provide a clear understanding of how the Offeror intends to staff and manage this task order to meet all requirements throughout the term of this task order. The plan must clearly define any teaming and subcontracting agreements. The plan must be provided in the form of a matrix or spreadsheet the lists individuals proposed who will be available on the first day of contract performance. This matrix will further indicate specific security clearances, certifications and qualifications that align to the requirements of AR 25-2 (attached).

(3) Section 3- Transition Plan

The Offeror shall describe its planned interaction with the incumbent contractor, interaction with Government personnel to identify key issues and transition milestones, management of staffing, and suggestions for resolving transition barriers.

I guess my question is, are these sub-factors sufficient enough?

No. They are not enough. Not nearly enough. Let's think. The solicitation says:

The Offeror shall describe its understanding of the requirements to be satisfied in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the method and approach to meeting the requirements.

When I read that, I conclude that you are going to evaluate three things: 1) the offeror, 2) the offeror's method, and 3) the offeror's approach. I think of each of those as a subfactor. Let's consider each.

OFFEROR. You have told us that you are going to evaluate each offeror on the basis of its understanding of the PWS. Presumably, the more complete an offeror's understanding, the better its value. I presume that understanding can range from "no understanding whatsoever" to "complete understanding," but I am not sure on what bases you will measure understanding. I don't know what evidence of understanding you must see in order for an offeror to earn the best possible rating for understanding. I might understand the PWS perfectly, but if I don't know what evidence of understanding you're looking for I'm writing my proposal in the dark.

OFFEROR'S METHOD and APPROACH. I don't know what distinction, if any, you make between "method" and "approach." You may mean them to be different things, or the author of the sentence we're looking at may be a careless writer. I presume that you want the offerors to describe their method and their approach and that you will read those descriptions in search of a certain quality or qualities. But I don't know what quality or qualities you will look for or how you will measure their presence.

The more clearly you think all of this through, and the more clearly you explain it in the solicitation, the better the competition you will get. On the other hand, once you start to think these things through you may decide you don't need all those criteria. You didn't acknowledge Don Acquisition's last post. You should go back and read it again. And think.

duke38,

What makes you think that an offeror's ability to produce a written document outlining its technical capabilities is indicative of their ability to perform IT services? Why not base your decision on verifiable information (i.e., like experience and past performance) instead of an offeror's predictions about what its "approach" will be to perform IT services?

There's an army of talented proposal writers out there that are ready to play your game. The best ones know what your evaluators like to read in the written technical proposals and have the skills to make offerors look better than they actually are. Intelligent offerors will hire these people (if they don't already employ them) to respond to your solicitation. You could very well end up favoring an offeror who submitted a well-written technical proposal over an offeror who didn't, but that was more capable of providing IT services. Why put yourself in that situation?

They actually place experience and past performance in the next section Volume III.

I guess what we need to tell the PO is to come up with a more detailed evaluation factor for Technical.

I guess what we need to tell the PO is to come up with a more detailed evaluation factor for Technical.

I believe that was the general thrust of my post.