Evaluation Approach. The GENERA evaluation approach consisted of a concept and design analysis on the one hand (ex- ante evaluation) and an implementation analysis on the other (ex-post evaluation). As described in the evaluation concept (D3.1), the concept and design analysis was outlined to assess whether the defined measures fit the respective goals as they were set by the partner organisations. Yet, in the ex-ante phase it became obvious that this plan could not be realised, because not enough Gender Equality Plans (GEPs) or measures would be fully implemented during the project. This is why we adopted our evaluation approach and became Critical Friend of the implementation managers (IMs). This approach (Xxxxxxxxx 2012, see D3.1) includes facilitating learning by providing timely feedback, advice and (external) expertise in order to establish a trustful relationship which enables learning. The approach applies to the GENERA team as well as the management of ROs. The overall aim of the Critical Friend is to provide support for starters and to learn for additional policy design (for more findings on policy design see also D6.2 GENERA Policy Briefs). Furthermore, we found out that the phase of designing the GEPs is crucial to understand. Why does it take so long? What are the challenges? What resistances can already be found here? Still, the analyses were based on personal interviews with members of the GENERA implementation teams and other policy actors, stakeholders and research staff within each institution as well as the conducted online surveys. Furthermore, the implementation analysis made use of the information provided by the implementation reports produced in WP4 and self-reporting forms filled out by each implementing partner.
Evaluation Approach. This factor evaluates the Offeror’s team experience in completing recent and relevant projects. Relevancy will be determined by projects that demonstrate completion of projects similar in scope, complexity, size, and cost and price to the solicitation project. When determining the relevancy of projects submitted for team experience, the role performed by the Offeror or the Team Member will be considered for consistency with the proposed role to be performed by the Offeror or the Team Member. Failure to provide agreements or letters of commitment, as applicable, may result in a lower rating for this factor. Relevancy of submitted projects will be evaluated based on experience in performing similar work as summarized in the list of activities below (listed in descending order of importance): Manage significant, complex environmental remediation projects with a price or cost greater than $5 million Excavate, transport, and consolidate contaminated soil, including off-site transportation and disposal. Install low-permeability cap to contain contaminated waste materials Remove contaminated sediment material in shallow waters Implement and manage confirmatory sampling and air monitoring programs Perform remedial response actions in accordance with CERCLA Offerors shall submit projects that collectively demonstrate experience in relevant work. Offerors who submit projects that demonstrate experience in multiple elements of the relevant work listed above may be more highly rated. This factor will be rated using Table 1. This factor will also evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management and teaming approach for accomplishing the work. In addition, this factor will also evaluate the qualifications of the key personnel included in the base IDIQ Performance Work Statement. Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the specific requirements described in the solicitation and demonstrate the ability of their management approach to accomplish those requirements. Offerors’ signed copies of their joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, approved mentor-protégé agreement, or letter of commitment for proposed Team Members submitted under Team Experience will be considered during the evaluation of Factor 1. Failure to provide agreements or letters of commitment, as applicable, may result in a lower rating for this factor. The Offeror’s Organizational Approach will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and level of risk to the Gov...
Evaluation Approach. The following are considered major technical elements of the Seed Task Order that will be evaluated: OU#6 Properties Excavation Approach - Management Approach - Confirmation Sampling Approach - Air Monitoring Approach - Dewatering Approach OU#4 Management Approach - Air Monitoring - Stormwater Management - Contaminated Soil Placement & Management - Overall Site Management Transportation/Traffic Management Approach Offsite Transportation & Disposal Schedule & Sequencing Failure to address any one of the major technical elements will be considered a deficiency and the Factor 2 will be rated red/unacceptable, and the Offer will be considered un-awardable unless revised. The Offeror’s proposed Seed Task Order technical approach will be evaluated for completeness, logic, reasonableness, and level of risk to the Government as compared to the solicitation requirements. Greater consideration may be given to Offerors that provide a comprehensive, technically sound, low risk approach for completing the work identified above that is consistent with their proposal for Factor 1. This factor will be rated using Table 1. Factor 3 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 ...
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. 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.
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. I. FACTOR 1 TECHNICAL Subfactor A – Personnel Subfactor B – Corporate Experience Subfactor C – Small Business Subcontracting Commitment
Evaluation Approach. All proposals deemed complete and in compliance with the RFP shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).
Evaluation Approach. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:
Evaluation Approach. The Government intends to award a contract to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value and is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. The evaluation will be accomplished utilizing the listed five (5) evaluation factors: Technical, Experience, Transition Plan, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Below is further discussion of the factors in detail. In order for an Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive at least an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price Factor and Sub-factor. A proposal receiving a rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” in any non-price Factor or Sub-factor will not be eligible for award. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, Offerors are cautioned to ensure that their proposals contain all necessary information and are complete in ALL respects. The non-cost factors for evaluation are Technical, Experience, Transition Plan, and Past Performance. The Technical Factor is comprised of (3) Sub-factors: 1a) Technical Ability, 1b) Management Approach, and 1c) Recruitment and Retention.
