SOURCE SELECTION DECISION Sample Clauses

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION. The Source Selection Authority/Contracting Officer, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will make the source selection decision based on the proposal that represents the best value to the Government. The Source Selection authority / Contracting Officer will not receive a recommendation from any individual or body as to which offeror should receive the award and additionally will not receive a rank order or order of merit list pertaining to the offers being evaluated. The Source Selection Authority will use the Tradeoff Process approach for proposal evaluation and basis of contract award. The Source Selection Authority will evaluate quality proposals using adjective ratings and cost or price. All evaluation factors, when combined, other than cost or price are slightly more important than price. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. PHASE 2 PROPOSAL CONTENTS AND RELATED EVALUATION FACTORS, SUB-FACTORS AND ELEMENTS AND SUB-FACTORS (VOLUME 1 – DESIGN TECHNICAL and SCHEDULE) Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 1 Design Technical and Schedule More Important than Factor 2 Sub-Factor 1 Vol. 1 TAB A Design Analysis and Construction Approach More Important than Sub-Factor 2 Sub-Factor 2 Vol. 1 TAB B Proposed Project Summary Schedule Less Important than Sub-Factor 1 (VOLUME 2 – PRICE AND PRO FORMA INFORMATION) Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance FACTOR 2 Price and Pro Forma Less Important than Factor/Sub Factor Location Description Relative Importance Information Factor 1 and More Important than Factor 3 N/A Vol. 2 TAB A Price (Standard Form 1442 and Proposal Bid Schedules) Not Rated N/A Vol. 2 TAB B Bid Guarantee Evidence of Bondability Not Rated N/A Vol. 2 TAB C Required Pre-Award Information Not Rated
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
SOURCE SELECTION DECISION. (a) The overall evaluation methodology set forth above will be used by the Contracting Officer as a guide in determining which quotations offer the best value to the U.S. Government. In accordance with FAR 52.215- 1, and as set forth in Section M of this solicitation, award will be made by the Contracting Officer to the responsible Offeror(s) whose quotations represents the best value to the U.S. Government after evaluation in accordance with all factors in this solicitation.
Sample 1
SOURCE SELECTION DECISION. The Government will make a source selection decision based on the Tradeoff process method in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal demonstrates the best value by exhibiting the greatest overall technical merit and performance confidence assessment at a reasonable price. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). Accordingly, the Government may be willing to pay a reasonable premium for a contract offering superior overall technical merit and past performance. Conversely, the Government may select a lower-price, lower-rated proposal if the Government determines that the premium associated with the higher-rated proposal is not justified. In making its best value determination the Government shall consider technical merit (i.e., all non-price factors taken together) to be significantly more important than the total evaluated price. However, the importance of total evaluated price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall technical merit of competing proposals. CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT M-215-H002 MULTIPLE AWARDS (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018) It is the intent of the Government to award more than one contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make one or more awards based upon the number of acceptable proposals received and the availability of funding. (End of provision) M-215-H003 EVALUATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SINGLE PROCESS INITIATIVE (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018) Previously approved Single Process Initiative (SPI) processes will be evaluated under the source selection criteria of the RFP. If the successful offeror has previously approved SPI processes in the proposal, those SPI processes will be incorporated into the contract upon award. (End of provision) M-247-H001 F.O.B. EVALUATION CRITERIA (NAVSEA) (DEC 2018) OFFERS SUBMITTED ON AN F.O.B. BASIS OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN SECTION F SHALL BE REJECTED AS UNACCEPTABLE.
Sample 1
SOURCE SELECTION DECISION. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract using the procedures of FAR Part 15. The Government shall select the Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government, considering technical, past performance and price when compared to other proposals. The Government also reserves the right to not award a contract if a contract award is not in the best interest of the Government. Technical Ratings
Sample 1
SOURCE SELECTION DECISION. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with the FAR, DFARS, NMCARS, internal NAVSEA guidance and procedures as well as any other applicable regulation or policy. These regulations and procedures provide for checks and balance and independent evaluation of proposals to ensure integrity is maintained throughout the process. Offerors are encouraged to consult the regulations and guidance online. The following is a broad overview of the process: Initial Proposals: The Government will open and distribute the price and non-price proposals; ensuring no price information is included in the non-price proposal. Price and non-price proposals will be evaluated independently against the evaluation factors. The Government may elect to make award based on initial proposals. However, the Government reserves the right to enter into Discussions.
Sample 1
SOURCE SELECTION DECISION. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with the FAR, DFARS, NMCARS, internal NAVSEA guidance and procedures as well as any other applicable regulation or policy. These regulations and procedures provide for checks and balance and independent evaluation of proposals to ensure integrity is maintained throughout the process. Offerors are encouraged to consult the regulations and guidance online. The following is a broad overview of the process: Initial Proposals: The Government will open and distribute the price and non-price proposals; ensuring no price information is included in the non-price proposal. Price and non-price proposals will be evaluated independently against the evaluation factors. The Government may elect to make award based on initial proposals. However, the Government reserves the right to enter into Discussions. Discussions: If discussions are applicable, all Offerors selected to participate in discussions shall be advised of deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. Offerors shall be offered a reasonable opportunity to correct or resolve these areas and to submit price, or other revisions to their offer that may result from the discussions. Final Proposal Revision (FPR): At the conclusion of discussions, the Government will request that Offerors submit their final proposals. The Government will then consider any revisions and/or additional data provided as a result of discussions to determine the Best Value proposal to the Government. The evaluation criteria in Section M shall continue to be the basis for evaluation of the FPRs. Notification: Notification during the source selection process shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.5. The Government will make comparisons among the Offerors and will select the offer which represents the best value to the Government after evaluation of the factors and subfactors set forth in this section in consideration of their relative importance. As defined in FAR 15.101-1, a trade-off process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other-than-the–lowest-price Offeror or other-than-the-highest- overall performance confidence rated Offeror. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to assure placement of a contract that is in the Government’s best interest. Accordingly, the Government may award any r...
Sample 1

Related to SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

  • Single Source Selection Services for tasks in circumstances which meet the requirements of paragraph 3.10 of the Consultant Guidelines for Single Source Selection, may, with the Association's prior agreement, be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.9 through 3.13 of the Consultant Guidelines.

  • Review and Selection Process The Project Narratives of SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the evaluation criteria listed above. Decisions to fund a grant are based on the strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by peer reviewers. The results of the peer review are advisory in nature. The program office and approving official make the final determination for funding based on the following: • Individual awards over $250,000 are approved by the Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council; • Availability of funds; • Equitable distribution of awards in terms of geography (including urban, rural, and remote settings) and balance among populations of focus and program size; • Submission of any required documentation that must be submitted prior to making an award; and • SAMHSA is required to review and consider any information about your organization that is in the Federal Award Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In accordance with 45 CFR 75.212, SAMHSA reserves the right not to make an award to an entity if that entity does not meet the minimum qualification standards as described in section 75.205(a)(2). If SAMHSA chooses not to award a fundable application in accordance with 45 CFR 75.205(a)(2), SAMHSA must report that determination to the designated integrity and performance system accessible through the System for Award Management (XXX) [currently, FAPIIS]. You may review and comment on any information about your organization that a federal awarding agency previously entered. XXXXXX will consider your comments, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about your organization’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed as described in 45 CFR 75.205 HHS Awarding Agency Review of Risk by Applicants.

  • Panel Selection 1. The Parties shall apply the following procedures in selecting a Panel: (a) the Panel shall comprise 3 members; (b) within 15 days following the date of the establishment of the Panel, each Party shall nominate a Panelist; (c) the Parties shall endeavor

  • Selection Process The Mortgage Loans were selected from among the outstanding one- to four-family mortgage loans in the Seller's portfolio at the related Closing Date as to which the representations and warranties set forth in Subsection 9.02 could be made and such selection was not made in a manner so as to affect adversely the interests of the Purchaser;

  • Quality-based Selection Services for assignments which the Bank agrees meet the requirements set forth in paragraph 3.2 of the Consultant Guidelines may be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of Quality-based Selection in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.1 through 3.4 of the Consultant Guidelines.

  • Provider Selection To the extent applicable to Provider in performance of the Agreement, Provider shall comply with 42 CFR 438.214, as may be amended from time to time, which includes, but is not limited to the selection and retention of providers, credentialing and recredentialing requirements and nondiscrimination. If Subcontractor and/or Health Plan delegate credentialing to Provider, Subcontractor and/or Health Plan will provide monitoring and oversight and Provider shall ensure that all licensed medical professionals are credentialed in accordance with Health Plan’s and the State Contract’s credentialing requirements.

  • Shift Selection In multiple shift operations, employees within each classification shall have a right to select their work shift on the basis of their seniority within a bureau or division thereof and competing only with employees covered under this agreement on the following basis:

  • Election Procedures Each holder of record of shares of Company Common Stock (“Holder”) shall have the right, subject to the limitations set forth in this Article II, to submit an election in accordance with the following procedures:

  • SITE-BASED DECISION MAKING A. The District shall provide the training and staff development to support accountability/site- based decision-making activities. Teachers shall be given release time to attend these programs.

  • POST ONLINE PUBLIC AUCTION PROCEDURES 4.1. Successful E-bidders shall and undertake to sign the Memorandum of Sale at the office of the Auctioneer within 3 working days from the date of auction, failing which the deposit paid will be forfeited to the Assignee bank and the sale will be deemed cancelled/terminated and the property may be put up again for subsequent auction without further notice to the said E-Bidders. The Auctioneer shall send the Memorandum of Sale for stamping and thereafter forward the same together with the required deposit paid under Clause 2.4 above and the differential sum paid under this clause (if any) to the Assignee bank.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.