Evaluation Approach Sample Clauses

Evaluation Approach. I. FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL Subfactor A: Personnel Subfactor B: Corporate Experience Rating Description Subfactor C: Small Business Subcontracting Commitment 1. Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)

Evaluation Approach. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. An overall assessment of the merit of each proposal will be derived from the evaluation of the proposal as it relates to each factor and subfactor in this solicitation. A narrative explanation will be provided to support the adjectival ratings for the Technical Capability/Risk and Past Performance factors. Cost, including Cost Realism Analysis, shall be evaluated to determine that it is fair and reasonable. Results of the source selection process will be documented in accordance with the requirements of the Source Selection Plan (SSP). 1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

Evaluation Approach. This is a competitive acquisition for multiple award indefinite quantity/indefinite delivery (ID/IQ) task order contracts for analytical support services. Task orders may be firm fixed price (FFP) or cost plus fixed fee (CPFF). The ordering period will be five (5) years. Awards will be made based on the best overall (i.e. best value) propsal that is determined to be most beneficial to the Government with consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors: Technical, Management, Cost/Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation.

Evaluation Approach. Both the Mid-Term Evaluations and End-Programme Evaluations are expected to use a theory based evaluation approach that elaborates and then tests and re-tests “rich” theories of change for the individual components and the overall programme, as recommended in the Evaluability Assessment (Annex 4). They should seek to answer why a set of interventions produces certain effects, intended as well as unintended, for whom and in which contexts. The evaluations will test hypotheses within the overarching theory of change and for the individual programmes about how programme elements are expected to produce particular changes. The evaluation team should take as a starting point the theory of change for the overall programme presented in the Business Case (Annex 1) and the draft theories of change for individual programme components presented in implementing partners’ Inception Reports (Annex 6). The evaluation team is expected to work with implementing partners and other stakeholders to further elaborate these individual “rich” theories of change, and to use them to further develop the overall programme theory of change, during the inception phase. The evaluations should then seek to establish the extent to which the programme elements have been implemented, the extent to which the expected changes have occurred and the plausibility or otherwise of one having contributed to the other. Bidders should also consider whether there is value in additionally using realistic evaluation approaches to allow for testing of emergent or unpredictable effects, such as synergies between the individual programme components. The choice and balance of planned evaluation approach(es) should be indicated and justified in evaluation bids. The evaluation approach should then be further elaborated, along with the theories of change and a detailed evaluation framework and questions, during the evaluation inception phase.

Evaluation Approach. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality of performance which are combined to establish one performance assessment for each Offeror. For this factor, the Government will use the recency and relevancy established by the Government in reviewing Factor 1 - Team Experience & Organizational Approach for each project submitted by the Offeror in Factor 1. If the Government uses data obtained from other sources to examine projects other than those submitted for Factor 1, the Government will examine the projects for recency and relevancy consistently with the recency and relevancy criteria in Factor 1. In addition, Factor 3 will examine the quality of projects reviewed for this factor. Offers will be rated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” for this factor. Any offer rated “unacceptable” will be ineligible for award. The Government will evaluate the record of past performance for the Offeror and each proposed Team Member (identified in Factor 1) to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the requirements under this solicitation. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an “acceptable” rating. Table 4 - Past Performance Evaluation Factor Ratings Color Rating Description Green Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. Red Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluation Approach. The mid-term evaluation will be a three-step process. The first, the Evaluator will prepare for her trip to Paraguay by finalizing the evaluation methodology, reviewing documents and organizing the trip’s logistics. During the second step, the Evaluator will travel to Paraguay to conduct a series of interviews, meetings and site visits as well as analyze data, statistics, reports and documents. During this phase, the Evaluator will be joined by other team members and will together, finalize the evaluation methodology and organization of site visits, design and elaboration of interview instruments, and collection of necessary data. In the third step, the Evaluation Team will debrief key stakeholders, solicit their input on and document the findings and conclusions. Below is a more in-depth description of the evaluation process. Step One: Preparation for the Paraguay Mid-term Evaluation • Conduct telephone interviews with CIRD staff to formulate the scope of the mid-term evaluation, including confirmation of evaluation’s objectives, list of questions to guide interview, schedule of interviews, meetings and site visits. • Review relevant Paraguay program documents such as work plans, trip reports, presentations, evaluations, etc. • Coordinate with the CIRD Project Director to organize logistics of Paraguay visit. Step Two: Field Trip to Paraguay Evaluator will travel to Asuncion and • Finalize evaluation methodology with CIRD management and USAID. • Debrief CIRD staff of goals and objectives of mid-term evaluation to provide information and solicit their input on evaluation methodology. • Conduct interviews of CIRD staff located in Asuncion. • Collect and analyze additional local technical reports, documents, statistics, data, etc. • Assess overall M&E plan, process and tools for CIRD activities • Meet with major stakeholders of CIRD program, including USAID, Alianza members, members of CIRD Board of Director. • Visit site(s) of CIRD activities in the field. Also interview CIRD field staff in the regions. • Document findings and preliminary conclusions to be included in mid-term evaluation report. • Conduct intermittent meetings with CIRD President and Project Director to review and solicit feedback on initial findings. • Conduct exit meeting with CIRD staff to present preliminary findings and to solicit their feedback on findings. • Conduct debriefing with USAID to share preliminary findings of mid-term evaluation. Step Three: Document findings in a mid-term...

Evaluation Approach. M.4.1. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). M.4.2. The over-arching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

Evaluation Approach. M.1.3.3.1 The Government will conduct proposal evaluations using a Best Value: Trade off approach and will follow FAR 15.101-1, and Section M.1 of this solicitation, Evaluation Factors for Award. The Government will make award to the Offeror whose proposal(s) represent(s) the best value to the Government by applying the tradeoff process described in FAR15.101-1. M.1.3.3.2 All of the non-cost Factors in Table M.4.1-1, when combined, are more important than Cost/Price. The Government is willing to pay more if an increase in the technical merit of the proposal justifies and is in the best interest of the Government. However, the Cost/Price Factor may become more significant in contributing to the final selection decision if competing proposals are technically comparable. No award will be made to a large business Offeror that fails to submit an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Evaluation Approach. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows: