1-9-1_RFP-25R006_Technical Proposal and Evaluation Scoring_ 20250225 Protected DRAFT.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Language & Interpretation Support Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 70SBUR25R00000006
About this file
This is a technical evaluation scoring spreadsheet template for a language and interpretation services solicitation from USCIS. The template breaks down scoring across three technical subfactors: Technical Approach & Required Language Capabilities, Management Approach & Staffing Plan, and Past Performance.
The file details language requirements across two tiers - Table A (more common languages) and Table B (less common languages), with Spanish having the highest estimated volume at 19.5M minutes per year. The contractor must provide 24/7/365 interpreter services via telephone and video, including ASL and CDI capabilities with 72-hour scheduling confirmation. Key requirements include maintaining 90% staffing levels, providing toll-free access numbers with PIN security, covering all time zones, and delivering weekend support. The template also evaluates the contractor's ability to handle documentation, privacy considerations, quality control, reporting, and transition planning. The government anticipates making 3-5 multiple-award contracts under this solicitation.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1-9-1_RFP-25R006_20250228 DRAFT WATERMARKED.pdf | ||
| 1-9-1_RFP-25R006_Price Proposal_20250224 Protected DRAFT.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Technical Evaluation Scoring
| Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 | Score |
| Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Approach & Required Language Capabilities | 0 |
| Technical Subfactor 2: Management Approach & Staffing Plan | 0 |
| Technical Subfactor 3: Past Performance | 0 |
| Technical Score (Overall) | 0 |
| REFER TO SOLICITATION: Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Sep 2023) | |
| Yellow Highlighted Cells are those requiring entries by the Offeror (On Technical Subfactor Tabs) |
Technical Subfactor 1
| Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 |
| Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Approach & Required Language Capabilities |
| Technical Subfactor 1: Score: |
| 0 |
| Technical Approach (PWS Sections 6, 9 and 23) | How well does the Offeror's Technical Proposal address the ability to satisfy the requirements of the PWS Section 6 (SPECIFIC TASKS/REQUIREMENTS)? | Will the Offeror have the capability of telecommunication technology (i.e., landline and cell phone, Microsoft Teams, email, fax (machine or electronic), video conferencing, and basic internet function)) to provide interpreter services when conducting interviews? | Does the Offeror currently have the capability to provide both a ASL and CDI upon request from an Asylum Office Government representative and accommodate sign language requests such that a confirmation of scheduling is provided within seventy-two (72) hours (three (3) calendar days)? | If the Offeror does not currently have the capability to provide both a ASL and CDI upon request from an Asylum Office Government representative and accommodate sign language requests such that a confirmation of scheduling is provided within seventy-two (72) hours (three (3) calendar days), will the Offeror be able to recruit personnel required to support these services? | Will the Offeror provide at minimum one (1) dedicated toll-free telephone number (domestic and international) with a security Personal Identification Number (PIN) that the Government would use to access the interpreter services on an as-needed basis, twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) calendar days per week, 365 calendar days per year? | How well does the Offeror's Technical Proposal address the ability to satisfy the requirements of the PWS Section 9 (QUALITY CONTROL)? | How well does the Offeror's Technical Proposal address the ability to satisfy the requirements of the PWS Section 23 (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS & QUALITY ASSURANCE)? |
| Technical Approach: Score | |||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Required Language Capabilities (PWS Attachment 25.1) | |
| Required Language Capabilities: Score | |
| 0 | |
| PWS Attachment 25.1 Required Languages | |
| (Updated 12/5/2024) | Table A, More Common / More Frequently Required Languages, or |
Table B, Less Common / Less Frequently Required Languages (Based on the Estimated minutes/year) Estimated minutes/year
(Total for all awarded contracts, the Government anticipates 3-5 multiple-award contracts) Is this a language for which the Offeror either currently has or will be able to recruit and provide Interpretation Services? Score How many Interpreters meeting the PWS requirements does the Offeror currently have available to begin the Entry on Duty (EOD) Application process immediately after award?
Proof of these numbers detailed in the Technical Proposal (Section 25 consistent with the PWS Section 25) Score How many Interpreters meeting the PWS requirements does the Offeror estimate it will be able to recruit to begin the Entry on Duty (EOD) Application process within forty-five (45) days after award?
Strategy to achieve these numbers detailed in the Staffing Plan (Section 14 consistent with the PWS Section 14) Score Is this a language for which the Offeror either currently has or will be able to recruit and provide
| Document Translation Services? | Score | ||||||||||
| Spanish | Table A | 19,587,520 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Mandarin | Table A | 1,841,227 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Punjabi | Table A | 1,214,426 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Russian | Table A | 734,532 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Arabic | Table A | 519,069 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Hindi | Table A | 313,400 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| French | Table A | 293,813 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Portuguese | Table A | 293,813 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Bengali | Table A | 244,844 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Creole/Haitian Creole | Table A | 195,875 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Nepali | Table A | 166,494 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Quiche/K'iche | Table A | 146,906 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Tigrinya | Table A | 146,906 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Pulaar | Table A | 146,906 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Turkish | Table A | 121,443 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Mam | Table A | 117,525 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Hausa | Table A | 117,525 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Armenian | Table A | 113,608 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Gujarati | Table A | 97,938 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Amharic | Table A | 88,144 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Urdu | Table A | 73,453 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Farsi-Iranian | Table A | 70,515 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Tamil | Table A | 62,680 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Romanian | Table A | 58,763 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Vietnamese | Table A | 48,969 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Albanian | Table A | 43,093 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Fulani | Table A | 43,093 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Konjobal | Table A | 43,093 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Quichua | Table A | 43,093 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Indonesia/Bahasa | Table A | 37,216 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Lingala | Table A | 31,340 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Quichua/Canar Highland | Table B | 1,844 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Georgian | Table B | 1,844 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Wolof | Table B | 1,844 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Cantonese | Table B | 1,844 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Somali | Table B | 1,844 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Urdu | Table B | 1,229 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Quechua | Table B | 1,229 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Quichua/Chimborazo Highland | Table B | 922 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Hassaniya | Table B | 615 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Burmese | Table B | 615 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Ixel | Table B | 615 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Ukrainian | Table B | 430 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Tajiki | Table B | 369 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Marathi | Table B | 369 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Twi | Table B | 399 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Kyrgyzstani | Table B | 399 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Akan | Table B | 399 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Oromo | Table B | 123 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Mongolian | Table B | 123 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Yoruba | Table B | 123 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Foo Chow | Table B | 123 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Hungarian | Table B | 123 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Kurdish | Table B | 123 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 10% of the Subtotal | 0 | 20% of the Subtotal | 0 | 20% of the Subtotal | 0 | 10% of the Subtotal | 0 |
Technical Subfactor 2
| Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 |
| Technical Subfactor 2: Management Approach & Staffing Plan |
| Technical Subfactor 2: Score |
| 0 |
Management Approach (PWS Sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 24) How well does the Offeror's Technical Proposal address the ability to satisfy the requirements of the PWS Section 7 (INTERPRETER REQUIREMENTS, QUALIFICATIONS, & FLUENCY)? How well does the Offeror's Technical Proposal address the ability to satisfy the requirements of the PWS Section 8 (CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL)? Will the Offeror have qualified staff for managing accounts and security issues, i.e. clearing interpreters through the USCIS Office of Security and Integrity (OSI) and onboarding? Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 10 (CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS)? How well does the Offeror's Technical Proposal address the ability to satisfy the requirements of the PWS Section 11 (OTHER APPLICABLE CONDITIONS)? Will the Offeror have the capability to stagger interpreter schedules to ensure coverage across all timezones?
| The Technical Proposal must detail how the Offeror will execute. | Will the Offeror be able to staff support on the weekends on short notice. | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 12 (REPORTING REQUIREMENTS)? | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 13 (POST AWARD CONFERENCE/MEETING)? | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 15 (TRANSITION SUPPORT IN/OUT PLAN)? | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 16 (PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP))? | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 17 (DOCUMENTATION)? | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 18 (CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLAN/BUSINESS DISRUPTION PLAN)? | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 19 (CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE MEETING)? | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 20 (E-VERIFY)? | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 21 (INVOICES)? | Will the Offeror be able to comply with the requirements of the PWS Section 24 (DELIVERABLES)? | |||||||
| Management Approach: Score | ||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Staffing Plan (PWS Section 14) | How well does the Offeror's Staffing Plan address the ability to satisfy the requirements of the PWS Section 14 (STAFFING PLAN)? | Will the Offeror have the capability to maintain an adequate workforce of 90% on-board for the uninterrupted performance of all tasks defined in the PWS? | ||||||||||||||||
| Staffing Plan: Score | ||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
Technical Subfactor 3
| Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 |
| Technical Subfactor 3: Past Performance |
| Technical Subfactor 3: Score |
| 0 |
Past Performance Example Contract/Order (Up to 1 of 3) Contract/Order Number Contracting Officer/Ordering Individual Point Of Contact (POC) Name & E-mail Address For Performace Ratings verification (If determined to be necessary by the Government) Recent Past Performance: An example past or current contract/order with supporting information included at the end of the Technical Proposal with services performed by the Offeror within two (2) years of the date specified for receipt of offers. Relevant Past Performance: An example past or current contract/order with supporting information included at the end of the Technical Proposal with services performed by the Offeror that are similar to the services required by this solicitation.
| Performance Rating - Quality | |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Schedule |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Cost Control |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Management |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Small Business |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Regulatory |
of the services performed by the Offeror
| Past Performance Example Contract/Order (Up to 1 of 3): Score | ||||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Past Performance Example Contract/Order (Up to 2 of 3) | Contract/Order Number | Contracting Officer/Ordering Individual |
Point Of Contact (POC) Name & E-mail Address For Performace Ratings verification (If determined to be necessary by the Government) Recent Past Performance: An example past or current contract/order with supporting information included at the end of the Technical Proposal with services performed by the Offeror within two (2) years of the date specified for receipt of offers. Relevant Past Performance: An example past or current contract/order with supporting information included at the end of the Technical Proposal with services performed by the Offeror that are similar to the services required by this solicitation.
| Performance Rating - Quality | |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Schedule |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Cost Control |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Management |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Small Business |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Regulatory |
of the services performed by the Offeror
| Past Performance Example Contract/Order (Up to 2 of 3): Score | ||||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Past Performance Example Contract/Order (Up to 3 of 3) | Contract/Order Number | Contracting Officer/Ordering Individual |
Point Of Contact (POC) Name & E-mail Address For Performace Ratings verification (If determined to be necessary by the Government) Recent Past Performance: An example past or current contract/order with supporting information included at the end of the Technical Proposal with services performed by the Offeror within two (2) years of the date specified for receipt of offers. Relevant Past Performance: An example past or current contract/order with supporting information included at the end of the Technical Proposal with services performed by the Offeror that are similar to the services required by this solicitation.
| Performance Rating - Quality | |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Schedule |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Cost Control |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Management |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Small Business |
| of the services performed by the Offeror | Performance Rating - Regulatory |
of the services performed by the Offeror
| Past Performance Example Contract/Order (Up to 3 of 3): Score | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .