LAB - Evaluation Plan.pdf

Evaluation Plan

Project Name: Legal Access at the Border (LAB) Program

JPQ Number: 15JE1R-22-PR-0098

Date: 01/19/2022

Version: 1.0

I. EVALUATION OF QUOTES

A. Conduct of Acquisition: This acquisition shall be conducted using the policies and procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Section 12.603 and FAR Part 13. The government will evaluate quotes in accordance with the evaluation scheme, factors and criteria in this document and the Request for Quotations (RFQ). The Contracting Officer (CO) shall select an Offeror for contract award using the best value analysis described in this document and the RFQ. Contract award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose quote is responsive to the RFQ and is determined to represent the best value to the Government. An Offeror’s quote will be eliminated from consideration prior to completion of evaluations if the quote contains multiple omissions or ineligibility designators as to be rendered unacceptable and to preclude a meaningful evaluation.

B. Best Value: Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each Offeror’s quote in accordance with evaluation criteria stated in the RFQ. A best value-trade off selection basis reflects the Government’s willingness to accept other than the lowest cost/price if the perceived benefits of the quote with the higher price merit the additional cost/price. Quote evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the evaluation scheme and criteria stated below. The award decision will be made based on an integrated assessment of each quote on a “tradeoff” basis between price and non-price factors. The rationale for the tradeoffs between a higher cost or price quote and the benefits obtained for that Offeror’s technical quote will be documented in the Selection Decision Statement. In making this integrated assessment of all quotes, the Government strives to obtain superior performance rather than the lowest overall cost/price.

However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost/price to obtain only slightly improved performance or past performance.

C. Number of Awards: The Government may make multiple awards as a result of this RFQ.

II. OVERALL RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will use the following two (2) factors to evaluate quotes and make a best value determination (factors are listed in descending order of importance):

A. Technical Capability (Subfactors: Technical Approach, Team Organization and Staffing

Approach, Experience, and Past Performance)

The Technical Capability Subfactors under the Technical Capability Factor are separate factors and will be evaluated individually, weighted in equal importance, for technical evaluation purposes. All four (4) Technical Capability Subfactors will be considered together for purposes of assigning a single rating to the Technical Capability Factor. Technical Capability Subfactors, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price.

The following adjectival ratings will be used for the overall Technical Capability Factor:

Adjectival Rating Rating Description Excellent After considering all Subfactors, there is little risk to the

Government in the Offeror’s Quote. The Quote contains no omissions or ineligibility designators.

Very Good After considering all Subfactors, there is some risk to the Government in the Offeror’s Quote that requires little additional oversight by the Government. The Quote contains no omissions or ineligibility designators.

Acceptable After considering all Subfactors, there is some risk to the Government in the Offeror’s Quote that requires some additional oversight by the Government. Acceptable solution. The Quote contains no omissions or ineligibility designators.

Marginal After considering all Subfactors, there is a lot of risk to the

Government in the Offeror’s Quote that requires a lot of additional oversight by the Government. The Quote may contain an omission or ineligibility designator which is easily correctable through dialogue prior to award.

Unacceptable After considering all Subfactors, there is too much risk to the Government in the Offeror’s Quote that requires an unacceptable level of additional oversight by the Government. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the Quote. The Quote contains multiple omissions or ineligibility designators that are not correctable.

Tradeoffs may be considered when determining best value. The Government reserves the right to pay a higher price for greater technical capabilities. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government is implicit in the entire process. Throughout the evaluation the Government will consider “correction potential” when an omission or ambiguity is identified.

The following definitions will be used for the Technical Capability Factor.

• A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the quote that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

• A strength is defined as an aspect of the quote that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

• A weakness is defined as a flaw in the quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• A significant weakness is a flaw in the quote that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

B. PRICE

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, but will not be assigned a rating.

III. EVALUATION FACTORS

A. EVALUTION FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL CAPABILITY FACTOR

1. SUBFACTOR 1 (TECHNICAL APPROACH)

The Government expects the Contractor to provide legal services as prescribed in the SOW, and as such requires demonstration of these qualifications in the Quote.

Submission requirements for Factor 1 are prescribed below.

Offerors shall submit a narrative detailing your understanding and approach of the required services prescribed in Section A of the SOW.

2. SUBFACTOR 2 (TEAM ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING APPROACH)

The Government expects the Contractor to perform in the most efficient and effective manner under the resultant Contract, and as such requires demonstration of these qualifications in the Quote. Submission requirements for Subfactor 2 are prescribed below.

Submit a narrative detailing your organizational structure and staffing approach for each task prescribed in Section A(10) of the SOW. The narrative shall include, at a minimum, the following:

The Offeror’s organizational chart and a description of the lines of communication. All management and leadership personnel shall be identified on the organizational chart. Key Personnel and project roles shall be identified.

Resume for each identified Key Personnel describing experience as it relates to the LAB and their role. In addition, each resume shall include the following:

a. Team membership (i.e., Task Order Lead, CTA member, Subcontractor)

b. Education qualifications

c. Professional Certifications, if required/applicable

d. Experience qualifications

The Offeror’s staffing plan

The Offeror’s staff retention and replacement plan and the ability to staff for fluctuating workloads, and surge support, during performance of the SOW.

3. SUBFACTOR 3 (EXPERIENCE)

The Government requires a qualified Contractor with relevant and recent experience in projects similar in scope and size to that of this RFQ, and as such requires demonstration of these qualifications in the Quote. Submission requirements for Factor 3 are as follows:

1. The Offeror shall submit no more than five (5), relevant and recent projects

2. At least one (1) project shall have been performed by the Lead if submitting an

Offer under a CTA as prescribed in FAR Paragraph 9.601(1)

3. Project shall be of similar work, scope and size to that of the SOW

4. Project shall not exceed two (2) pages per project example

5. Projects shall contain information as follows:

a. Identification of Team Member who performed the work and entity role

(i.e., Prime/Lead Contractor, Sub-contractor/Team Member)

b. Project Name/Contract Number/Task Order Number

c. Customer Point of Contact for Project (phone number and email)

d. Project Performance Period (include months/years)

e. Project Dollar Value

f. Summary of the project including a detailed description of the requirements and results achieved and the methodology, tools, and/or processes utilized in performing the work

Projects shall have been completed (as of the quotation submission deadline), or on-going with at least one year of performance completed, within the past three

(3) years. Quotes must demonstrate projects relevant to the size and scope of work contemplated in the PWS, but need not have been performed solely for the Federal government. The Government reserves the right to contact references and/or project owners to obtain additional clarifying information regarding project relevance.

For multi-year projects, at least one year of performance must be completed as of the time of quotation submission.

4. SUBFACTOR 4 (PAST PERFORMANCE)

The Government requires a qualified Contractor with successful performance in projects similar in scope and size to that of this RFQ. A Past Performance Reference Sheet is attached. Offerors shall complete the questionnaire and return it with the quote. Please use one sheet per reference. The EOIR Procurement Staff will conduct a reference check based on the submission(s).

B. EVALUATION FACTOR 2 – PRICE

The Government will evaluate the proposed total price of the 12 months of the performance period to determine that the cost/price is valid, realistic and fair, and reasonable.