02 Evaluation Process_Draft RFP.pdf

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Background Investigation Fieldwork Services

Draft Solicitation

EVALUATION PROCESS

I. General

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government may select for award an Offeror that does not offer the lowest price if that Offeror proposes an approach that the Government deems technically superior to, or believes represents a lower risk than, the approaches of lower-priced competitors. The Government may also select an Offeror that does not offer the best technical solution or represent the lowest risk if the Government believes that a lower-priced proposal represents a better value.

The evaluation factors and rating methods that will be applied are summarized in the following table:

Factor/Subfactor # Title Rating Method Factor 1 Proposal Compliance Acceptable/Unacceptable Factor 2 Security Acceptable/Unacceptable Factor 3 Technical Capability Quality Assessment Rating Subfactor A Management Approach Subfactor B Quality Control Subfactor C Corporate Experience Factor 4 Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Factor 5 Small Business Utilization Small Business Utilization Assessment Rating Factor 6 Price N/A (Price Analysis)

The Government will evaluate proposals in two steps. Under the first step, the Government will evaluate Factors 1 and 2. Proposals must be deemed “Acceptable” under these factors for the Government to continue evaluating Factors 3 – 6 under the second step. Proposals deemed “Unacceptable” under the first step will be immediately rejected as unawardable.

Factors 3 and 4 are approximately equal in importance, and each is more important than Factors 5 or 6.

Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The rating methods are described in further detail below.

Acceptable/Unacceptable

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

DCSA BI Fieldwork Evaluation Process Draft Solicitation

Quality Assessment Rating

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The Government will define the term “risk” and its various levels, as used in the preceding table, as follows:

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, and the Offeror exhibits a significant degree of recent and relevant corporate experience.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, or the Offeror exhibits a moderate (but not significant) degree of recent and relevant corporate experience. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, or the Offeror exhibits no recent and relevant corporate experience. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Confidence Assessment Rating

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent and relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Small Business Utilization Assessment Rating

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

II. Methodology

The Government will assess Offerors on each factor based upon the considerations described below.

1. Factor 1: Proposal Compliance

The Government will evaluate whether the proposal conforms to the following administrative requirements stated at sections II.1. and III.1. of the Instructions to Offerors (“Instructions”):

• Contains a cover letter signed by a senior company official with authority to enter the company into a contract for this requirement.

• Contains two resumes, one for the proposed program manager, and the other for the proposed information technology manager.

• Contains a subcontracting plan.

A proposal that does not conform to the material requirements described above will be deemed “unacceptable” and rejected by the Government without further evaluation.

2. Factor 2: Security

The Government will confirm that the Offeror has submitted the required security documents stated at sections II.2. and III.2. of the Instructions, that the Offeror possesses an active Top Secret facility clearance level, and that the Offeror does not possess any unresolved foreign ownership, control, or influence issues. If the Offeror does not meet these requirements, or the Government is unable to determine whether the Offeror meets these requirements, the proposal will be deemed “unacceptable” and rejected by the Government without further evaluation.

3. Factor 3: Technical Capability

This factor is composed of Subfactors A, B, and C. The Government will provide a quality assessment rating for Factor 3 based upon its combined evaluation of these Subfactors.

A. Subfactor A: Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to successfully managing this work. In doing so, the Government will specifically consider the soundness of the Offeror’s proposal with respect to the Offeror’s ability to:

• Maintain and retain trained capacity to provide nationwide support (PWS 1.4.).

• Adhere to required performance standards, such as meeting strict timeliness requirements without compromising quality (PWS 6.2. - 6.4.).

• Manage constantly fluctuating workloads (PWS 1.17.).

• Train the workforce to adjust to constantly changing policies and procedures (PWS 5.2. and

5.3.).

• Obtain timely authorization to operate its own case-management system (Technical Exhibit A, 2.1).

B. Subfactor B: Quality Control

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to meeting the contract performance standards and ensuring compliance with applicable rules. In doing so, the Government will specifically consider the soundness of the Offeror’s proposal with respect to the Offeror’s ability to:

• Independently execute Federal policy (PWS 5.2.).

• Monitor the investigative process and address problems when identified (PWS 5.4. and 5.5.).

• Deliver investigative products within the required standards (PWS 6.2. - 6.4.).

• Conduct a Check Ride (Observation) Program and provide for an inspections program to oversee the investigative process (i.e., Records Check Program, oversight of retention and destruction of case notes) (PWS 5.5.).

• Train investigators in accordance with National Training Standards (Technical Exhibit B, 2.1.).

C. Subfactor C: Corporate Experience

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror and its major subcontractors have had experience performing similar projects. Referenced projects that are not both recent and relevant, as these terms are defined under section III.3.D.iii. of the Instructions, will not be evaluated by the Government. In evaluating this Subfactor, the Government will specifically consider the following:

• Overall experience performing Federal background investigation work.

• Experience maintaining nationwide capacity to conduct both in-person and virtual background investigations.

• Experience maintaining adequately trained, experienced, and cleared staffing in a constantly changing environment.

• How the Offeror has overcome obstacles the same as, or similar to, those that have and will arise during this work (e.g., changing investigative standards, implementation of new technologies, national emergency).

All else being equal, the Government will favor proposals that exhibit the following:

• Greater length of experience in years.

• A higher quantity of referenced projects.

• A wider breadth of experience with the specific topics in the preceding list.

• Greater fluency in addressing the specific topics in the preceding list.

4. Factor 4: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s performance history. Referenced projects that are not both recent and relevant, as these terms are defined under section III.4. of the Instructions, will not be evaluated by the Government. In determining each confidence assessment rating, the Government will specifically consider the following:

• Past performance ratings that are relevant to the successful performance of this requirement (e.g., quality control, management, timeliness).

• The extent of performance history.

• The quality of the supporting narratives.

• Performance trends.

All else being equal, the Government will favor proposals that contain or exhibit the following:

• Higher past performance ratings.

• A higher quantity of referenced projects (up to a maximum of three).

• Objective narratives that cite specific work examples and performance standards.

• A performance history that shows performance improvement over time instead of one that shows a decline in performance over time.

Offerors without any recent and relevant past performance will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for this factor.

5. Factor 5: Small-Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (except for small-business Offerors) approach and commitment to meeting the small-business goals for this requirement, which are stated under section III.5.A. of the Instructions. In determining the small business utilization assessment rating, the Government will consider the following:

• The degree to which the proposal satisfies each of the goals stated at section III.5.A. of the Instructions.

• Whether appropriate representations have been submitted for each firm in accordance with section III.5.B. of the Instructions.

• The degree to which the Offeror commits to specific small-business participants.

• The Offeror’s past performance with respect to meeting its small-business participation goals

(based upon the information submitted for Factor 4 and the Offeror’s self-described commitment to small business).

• The degree to which any provided supplemental information indicates a commitment to small business.

All else being equal, the Government will favor proposals that contain the following:

• An appropriate representation for each specific proposed firm.

• Completed matrixes that exceed the Government’s small-business goals instead of merely meeting the Government’s small-business goals.

• Matrixes with specific firms proposed for each goal (over matrixes listing potential small-business candidates).

• When specific firms are not proposed for each goal, matrixes with potential small-business candidates for each goal (over matrixes that do not specify any firms).

• Strong past performance with respect to small-business participation, as evidenced by high ratings supported by objective information drafted by a project client, and/or by the Offeror’s self-described success in meeting small-business requirements.

• Supplemental information (if provided) that shows a strong commitment to small business.

Additional notes regarding this factor:

• Plans that do not meet one or more of the Government’s small-business participation goals will be rated as “Unacceptable” for this factor.

• If a specific small-business firm is proposed in the Small Business Participation Matrix but no representation is provided for that firm, the Government will categorize the firm as a “potential” firm.

• The Government will not consider past-performance history for this factor if the Offeror lacks a past-performance record addressing this topic, or if the Offeror’s performance record on this topic is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

• Small-business Offerors will not be evaluated under or receive a rating for this factor.

6. Factor 6: Price

• The total evaluated price will be automatically calculated within the Price Workbook. It represents the Government’s estimated quantity of work across all job types for the first task order, multiplied by the Offeror’s Year 1 unit price for each job type.

• The Government will analyze the total evaluated price utilizing one or more of the methods stated at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine whether it is fair and reasonable.

• The Government may choose to perform a price realism analysis as appropriate for any proposal. This will occur if any unit price or the total evaluated price appear to be unrealistically low, indicating a potential lack of understanding by the Offeror and/or increased risk of performance failure. Upon conducting a price realism analysis, the Government may reject a proposal it considers to contain unrealistically low prices.