Section_M_-_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

SECTION M 1

FIELD OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES 2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 3

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD 6

The Government intends to make a single award IDIQ and make a subsequent award for 8 Task Order 1 immediately thereafter resulting from this solicitation, to the responsible 9 offeror whose offer conforming to this solicitation represents the best value to the 10 Government, all evaluation factors considered. 11

The tradeoff process will be used which allows tradeoffs to be made between cost/price 13 and non-cost/price factors that results in the most advantageous proposal for the PBGC. 14

The PBGC may determine to award the contract to other than the lowest price proposal, 16 or to other than the highest technically rated proposal. The PBGC will make tradeoffs 17 between cost/price and non-cost/price factors, which may result in a determination that a 18 superior technical solution merits or does not merit a higher cost/price. The award 19 decision will be based on an assessment of a proposal’s relative capability as measured 20 against the evaluation factors identified in this section. 21

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS 23

The PBGC will evaluate each offeror’s proposal using the evaluation factors identified 25 below and shall assign an adjectival rating to each non-cost/price factor and subfactor. 26

M.2.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL 28

The PBGC will determine the technical rating of each proposal by rating the technical 30 subfactors, and then rolling the individual subfactor ratings into an overall technical 31 rating. The technical subfactors are identified below. 32

M.2.1.1 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING AND 34

APPROACH 35

The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) members will evaluate the technical approach 37 proposed by each offeror to satisfy the requirements contained in the Government’s 38 Performance Work Statement (PWS) for this procurement. Consideration will be given 39 to aspects such as the completeness of the technical solution, confidence that all technical 40 requirements will be satisfied, unique and innovative technical solutions proposed, 41 strengths and weaknesses of the technical solution, and risks associated with the technical 42 solution. 43

M.2.1.2 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 2: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE 45

The TEP members will evaluate the corporate experience of each offeror in providing the 47 services contained in the Government’s PWS for this procurement. Consideration will be 48 given to aspects such as: 49

a. The strengths and weaknesses of the offeror’s core competencies and capabilities 50 (to include those of its major subcontractors and/or joint venture partners); 51

b. Confidence that the offeror can satisfy the requirements of this procurement; 52

c. Risks associated with the offeror. 53

M.2.1.3 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 56

APPROACH 57

The TEP members will evaluate the management approach proposed by each offeror to 59 satisfy the requirements contained in the Government’s PWS for this procurement. 60 Consideration will be given to aspects such as the completeness of the management 61 solution, confidence that all management requirements will be satisfied, and the strength 62 of the correlation between the Quality Control Plan and performance, including the 63 elements below: 64

Element 1 – Staffing Plan will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the plan 66 will meet the government’s requirements, and how it addresses the following strategies: 67

a. Strategy to maintain current personnel; 68

b. Strategy to maintain and enhance personnel technical proficiency; 69

c. Strategy to ramp up/ramp down staffing levels across the locations in response to 70 the transition schedule provided, changing priorities, surge events, and emerging 71 immediate requirements; 72

d. Ability to meet performance metrics and minimize customer dissatisfaction 73 resulting from personnel turnover for proposed labor categories. 74

Element 2 – Quality Control Plan. The plan will be evaluated to determine the extent 76 to which: 1) the plan ensures that quality inspections meet or exceed the QASP 77 standards; 2) how the plan identifies and prevents recurrences of performance 78 deficiencies; and 3) the plan describes measures taken to respond to and reduce 79 rework. 80

M.2.1.4 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 4 – TASK ORDER #1 82

The TEP will evaluate the Offeror’s Task Order #1 submission to determine the extent to 84 which it meets the Task Order PWS requirements in terms of the elements below: 85 Element 1 – Transition Plan 87

The offeror’s detailed transition plan will be evaluated to the extent to which the 88 transition approach outlined in Task Order 1 demonstrates: 89

a. Degree of confidence of successful delivery within the required schedule; 90

b. Whether risks have been identified, are reasonably mitigated, and sufficient 91 resources are on hand to begin the work; and 92

c. How the plan accomplishes the immediate transition of the work in the Coraopolis 93 office due to the current Coraopolis facility lease expiration. 94

Element 2 – Staffing Plan 96 As part of the plan, the offeror shall submit a detailed staffing chart indicating the labor 97 mix and delineating where subcontractor’s or team partners will be used. The 98 staffing plan will be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the lines of authority, 99 the proposed management to staff ratios, and the availability of qualified reach back 100 resources. 101 Element 3 – Key Personnel 103 The TEP members will evaluate the resumes of the Project Managers, Assistant Project 104 Managers, and Technical Support personnel proposed by each offeror for this 105 procurement. Consideration will be given to aspects such as the education and 106 experience of proposed key personnel, confidence that the key personnel can perform 107 the required tasks for this procurement, capabilities of the key personnel, strengths and 108 weaknesses of the key personnel, and risks associated with the key personnel. 109

M.2.1.5 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR 5 – KEY PERSON 111

The TEP members will evaluate the resume of the Program Manager proposed by each 113 offeror for this procurement. Consideration will be given to aspects such as the education 114 and experience of proposed key person, confidence that the key person can perform 115 the required tasks for this procurement, capabilities of the key person, strengths and 116 weaknesses of the key person, and risks associated with the key person. 117

M.2.2 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE 119

The PBGC will evaluate each offeror’s past performance based on the Questionnaires 121 received to confirm that they are relevant and recent. Those Questionnaires that are 122 determined to be relevant and recent will then be assigned an adjectival rating based on 123 the information provided by the customer reference. PBGC will determine the past 124 performance rating of each proposal by rolling the individual Questionnaire ratings into 125 an overall past performance rating. 126

Offerors are requested to make three copies of the Questionnaire and complete Section 128 I of each Questionnaire with a contract that the offeror has performed (or is performing) 129 which is relevant to this procurement, and recent. Relevant is defined as being of the 130 same or similar scope, size, and value. Recent is defined as being within the past three 131 years. Although past performance information for Federal Government contracts is 132 preferred, PBGC will consider information from state or local government contacts, or 133 commercial contracts, if an offeror does not have a sufficient number of Federal 134 Government contracts. 135 After completion of Part I of the PBGC Past Performance Questionnaires, the offeror is 137 to provide the Questionnaires to the respective customer points of contact. Offerors are 138 to request that these customer points of contact complete Part II of their respective Past 139 Performance Questionnaire and return the complete Questionnaire directly to the PBGC 140 Contracting Officer for arrival not later than the proposal due date. Failure to receive any 141 Past Performance Questionnaire, receive a Questionnaire from a party other than the 142 customer point of contact, or receive a Questionnaire after the proposal due date will 143 result in the assignment of a rating of “Neutral/Unknown” for that Questionnaire. 144

M.2.3 FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE 146

Using the unit cost/price for the Line Item Numbers (LINs) provided by each offeror in 148 the price schedule of their proposal, PBGC will calculate the extended price for each LIN 149 using the [enter actual or maximum] quantity specified in the price schedule for the base 150 period. The extended price for each LIN in the base period will then be added to 151 determine the total price for the base period. This process will then be repeated for each 152 option period. Upon determining the total price for each option period, the total base 153 period price will be added to the total price of all option periods to determine the total 154 contract cost/price. 155 The Volume will not be point scored, assigned a numerical weight, nor adjectivally rated. 157 While cost/price has no numerical weight or adjectival rating, it is a criterion in the 158 overall evaluation. 159 Large Businesses shall submit a copy of their subcontracting plan in this volume, which 161 will be evaluated by the PBGC Small Business Advisor. 162 The offeror’s completed cost/price schedule will be used to determine total cost/price, to 164 include base period and all option periods. PBGC shall use the completed cost/price 165 schedule for cost/price analysis to determine whether the proposed costs/prices are fair 166 and reasonable. 167 The PBGC may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are 169 materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total 170 evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or 171 understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A 172 proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance 173 poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. 174 Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the 176 Government’s best interests, the PBGC will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding 177 the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of 178 options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options. 179

M.2.4. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION 181

Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that 183 Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government 184 acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s Small 185 Business Participation plan demonstrates the offeror’s commitment to maximizing 186 opportunities for small businesses. The Government will consider whether the offeror 187 meets or the degree to which it exceeds the Government objective of any single socio-188 economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an offeror 189 meets or exceeds. 190 The Government has established the following objectives for this procurement, based 192 on total contract value: 193

• Small Business (SB) 23.00% 194

• Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5.00% 195

• Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.00% 196

• HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) 0.50% 197

• Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 1.00% 198 The offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Contract 200 Participation Matrix will be evaluated against the Governments objective for each socio-201 economic category. 202 The Government will verify that the size and socio-economic status for each small 204 business subcontractor identified in the Contract Participation Matrix matches the 205 subcontractors written certification. For HUBZone-certified subcontractors identified in 206 the Contract Participation Matrix, the Government will verify the offerors evidence of 207 HUBZone certification IAW FAR clause 52.219-8(d)(2). 208 If the socio-economic status claimed in the matrix is not supported by the written 210 certifications, the proposed percentages associated to the subcontractor for any 211 unsupported category will be adjusted to zero. The government will not upwardly adjust 212 the proposed percentages if the Offeror fails to claim credit for all categories. However, 213 failing to claim credit for all categories may be viewed as not maximizing opportunities 214 for small businesses. 215 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror commits to using small 217 businesses in this procurement. An offeror who proposes little to no participation for 218 multiple socio-economic categories may be viewed by the Government as having a lack 219 of commitment to small businesses. 220 The offeror’s historical small business performance will be evaluated on the probability 222 of compliance with the requirement base on its recent performance record in the area 223 of small business utilization, with specific consideration given to the following: 224

• Compliance with all terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small 225 Business Concerns (when required on recent contracts). This shall include timely 226 payments to Small Business subcontractors. If the offeror has no historical information, 227 the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph. 228

• Compliance with all terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business 229 Subcontracting Plan (when required on the recent contracts). If the offeror has no 230 historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph. 231

• Actual small business utilization compared to small business subcontracting 232 goals identified in the approved subcontracting plan for each recent contract that 233 included a subcontracting plan. Offeror compliance with reporting requirements 234 including Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISR)/Summary Subcontracting Reports 235 (SSR). Offeror achievement on each individual goal stated within the subcontracting plan 236 including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved. If the offeror has no historical 237 information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph. 238 M.4.8 Additional documentation and explanations submitted in response to L.4.4, 239 second paragraph, may be considered as part of the offerors commitment to small 240 business. 241

M.3 RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE 243

All subfactors of the technical factor are of equal importance. The Technical Factor 1 is 245 more important than the Past Performance Factor 2, and the Past Performance Factor 2 is 246 more important than the Cost/Price Factor 3. However, when the Technical Factor and 247 the Past Performance Factor are combined, they are significantly more important than the 248 Cost/Price factor. 249

M.4 AWARD ON INITIAL PROPOSALS 251

The PBGC intends to make award without discussions, therefore each offeror’s initial 253 proposal should represent their company’s best offeror, considering all terms and 254 conditions, and costs/prices. However, the PBGC reserves the right to hold discussions if 255 to be in the best interest of the Government 256