02.02.01 Attachment 2 70FA4026R00000010 Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Contact Management & Distribution Service

Evaluation Criteria

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government intends to use a Best Value tradeoff process as the basis for award on this requirement. A rating of Unsatisfactory in any of the Factors 1 through 3 will render the entire proposal technically unacceptable and, therefore, not eligible for award.

Proposals shall concisely describe the Offeror’s response to the requirements of the solicitation.

The use of general or vague statements such as “standard procedures will be used” and “will comply with specification,” are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the Offeror’s lack of understanding. Do not repeat information required in response to two or more evaluation factors. Present details in only one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion. Where discussion of the same information is necessary, refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the proposal. Specific, detailed evaluation factors are stated in this RFP. Fully address each factor in the appropriate section of your proposal.

Clarity and completeness of the proposal are critical. The proposal must be written in a practical, clear, and concise manner. It must use quantifiable data whenever possible and avoid qualitative adjectives to the maximum extent possible. Proposal volumes must be internally consistent or the proposal will be considered unrealistic and may be considered unacceptable. Contractors must submit any assumptions made as part of their proposal.

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors

The Government will conduct a detailed evaluation of the Offerors’ approach and capability to meet the Government’s objectives against the following evaluation factors: (1) Technical and Management Approach; (2) Past Performance, (3) Price.

The listed factors are ordered in descending importance. Factor 1 is more important than Factor

2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3.

Price Factors – All Non-Price Factors when combined are significantly more important than Price.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Volume I Non-Price Factors (15 Page Limit):

Factor 1 – Technical and Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the contractor’s plan to satisfy all of the requirements set out in the Statement of Work and to manage the project successfully, including, among other areas, the contractor’s proposed quality assurance/quality control plan. Offerors shall state their delivery capabilities and adequately describe their plans/approach in regards to supporting FEMA OEA in the functional areas. Offerors must:

o Demonstrate an understanding of the requirement(s) described in the SOW;

o Describe how they will execute the general scope of the stated requirements;

o Describe how they will exercise quality control over deliverables to meet stated

The Offeror’s approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics, which are likely to result in a successful outcome within proposed costs and on schedule. This shall demonstrate the ability to devise and execute a program and successfully manage key project areas related to schedule management, cost management, quality assurance and management, human resources management, risk management, and communications management.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will examine the extent to which an Offeror has demonstrated, based on the information provided, the capability and capacity to perform the requirements of the SOW successfully. Each separate instance of past performance will be evaluated for relevancy in similar scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements in the SOW. Contractors who have performed similar projects should provide the following past performance information:

o List at least three projects, but not more than five completed within the past five years, with either the Federal Government or commercial customers, which demonstrate work similar in type to the work described in this solicitation o Short description of the work performed, challenges and success o Include name, telephone number, physical address, and email address of client o Contract and/or task order, annual and total dollar amount, period of performance, including whether the Offeror acted as a prime or subcontractor.

In performing this evaluation, the Government will also consider the Offeror’s documented ability for providing timely, accurate, and cooperative performance, as well as information obtained from other sources. A lack of relevant past performance history will result in an adjectival rating of Neutral and will not count for or against an Offeror’s proposal. The Government reserves the right to consider any recent past performance information retrieved from Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other Government databases.

Volume II – Price Proposal

Factor 3: Price The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes in accordance with FAR Subpart 12.204(a) and per the requirements of the statement of work, and the Contracting Officer shall determine that the prospective Contractor is responsible and that the prices offered (inclusive of discounts) are reasonable before awarding the contract. Price, while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful offeror for award of the contract contemplated by this solicitation.

While cost/price is for evaluation purposes only, cost/price may become a critical factor in source selection in the event that two or more Offerors are determined to be essentially equal following the evaluation of all factors other than cost or price. The Government reserves the right to make an award to the Offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

RATINGS and DEFINITION: The Offerors’ technical and management approach proposals will be rated using the following adjectival ratings: (1) Superior, (2) Satisfactory, (3) Marginal, and (4) Unsatisfactory. The Offeror’s proposals will be rated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Definition

Technical and Management

Superior Exceeds the requirements in a way which yields significant benefits to the Government; weaknesses, if any, are of small impact and NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Satisfactory Meets all requirements; proposal offers no significant benefits beyond the stated requirements, yet NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Marginal Fails to meet the minimum requirements or has one or more significant weaknesses. Deficiencies and significant weaknesses are correctable without major revisions to the proposals.

Unsatisfactory Fails to meet the minimum requirements or has one or more significant weaknesses. Deficiencies and significant weaknesses are correctable without major revisions to the proposals.

Rating Definition

Past Performance Neutral The Offeror has no relevant past performance.

Superior One or more examples where past performance significantly exceeded requirements.

Satisfactory Past Performance met requirements.

Unsatisfactory One or more examples where past performance significantly failed to meet requirements due to fault of contractor.

Deficiencies A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness A proposal flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is considered a weakness. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength An aspect of a proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance, or provides an approach directly related to the requirement that exceeds the minimum expectation and is likely to benefit the government.

Format

Document Maximum Pages Allowed Technical Proposal, including quality control procedures

15 Pages

Past Performance No Limit / Government will review CO or COR ratings in CPARS based on last three years’ performance.

Price No Limit, Complete Price Schedule (Attachment 2) Assumptions 2 Pages

Each prospective Offeror shall submit a proposal following the page limitations in the table above (each side will be counted unless blank; page size 8 ½ X 11; font size no less than 11 points); margin: not less than 1 inch. If fold outs are proposed, each will be counted as two pages. Font sizes in tables or graphics are not specified but graphics and tables must easy to understand and be legible.

Information provided that exceeds the page limits above will not be reviewed or evaluated.

Upon receipt and evaluation of proposals the Government intends to make an award without further discussion; however, this does not prohibit the Government from holding discussions prior to award if the contracting officer determines discussions to be in the best interest of the Government.