Section_M_-_Evaluation_Criteria_Tracked_Changes.pdf

SECTION M

FIELD OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT - RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNICAL

VERSUS PRICE FACTORS:

The Government will make an award to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government (i.e., that which represents the best value to the Government), cost or price and other factors considered.

While the price factor has no numerical weight or adjectival rating, it is a criterion in the overall evaluation of proposals. Furthermore, the proposed cost or price must be considered reasonable and must reflect the proposed technical approach.

The Government may award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer. In the event that two or more offers are considered technically equivalent, the evaluated cost or price will be of primary importance in determining the proposal most advantageous to the Government.

While the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior Field Office Support Services (FOSS), the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve moderately superior services. As nonprice factors approach equality, price will become a more significant factor.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will use the evaluation process described in the following paragraphs for proposals received in response to the FOSS solicitation.

Failure to abide by the instructions in Section L of the solicitation will result in an Offeror’s proposal not being considered for award.

The technical factors, Factor 1– IDIQ Technical Understanding and Approach, Factor 2 - Management Approach to Task Order #1, Factor 3 – Corporate Experience, Factor 4 - Past Performance, Factor 5 - Small Business Participation, and Factor 6 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan, will be evaluated on an adjectival scale. The combined relative merit of the technical evaluation factors and subfactors will be significantly more important than price in the selection of the contractor.

The following evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Factor 1 – IDIQ Technical Understanding and Approach Factor 2 – Management Approach to Task Order #1 Factor 3 – Corporate Experience Factor 4 – Past Performance Factor 5 – Small Business Participation

Factor 6 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Only applies to Other than Small Business firms)

M.2.1 VOLUME 1 - EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

The Government will determine the technical rating of each proposal by rating the technical factors, and then rolling the individual subfactor ratings into an overall technical rating. The technical factors are identified below.

M.2.1.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the technical approach proposed by each offeror to satisfy the requirements contained in the Government’s IDIQ Performance Work Statement (PWS) for this procurement. Consideration will be given to aspects such as the completeness of the technical solution, confidence that all technical requirements will be satisfied, unique and innovative technical solutions proposed, strengths and weaknesses of the technical solution, and risks associated with the technical solution.

M.2.1.2 FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO TASK ORDER 1

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Approach to Task Order #1 to determine the extent to which it gives the Government confidence that the PWS requirements will be met within required timeframes. Specifically, consideration will be given to the following subfactors which will be rated evaluated equally.

Subfactor 1: Transition Plan The Government will evaluate whether risks have been accurately identified, risk mitigation strategies proposed, and sufficient time and resources are allocated to accomplish the work.

Higher ratings will be considered for Offerors who provide specific examples of recent (within the last 3 years) of staffing transitions performed for similar clients in addition to transition plans which identify potential risk, risk mitigation, near-term hiring capabilities to meet an effort of this size address how current performance and customer service levels will be retained.

Subfactor 2: Management Approach The Management Approach will be evaluated for the technical merits, feasibility and overall approach to accomplish all aspects of the Task Order. Special emphasis shall be placed on the Offeror’s ability to achieve knowledge retention and staffing up quickly, especially near the Euclid, Ohio location, to accommodate the transition schedule and/or future surges in work volume.

Subfactor 3: Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel

The offeror’s key personnel will be evaluated to determine the extent to which they meet the minimum qualifications for the labor categories identified in Section H . Key personnel include: Program Manager, Project Managers, Assistant Project Managers, and Technical Support Assistant.

Proposed personnel who exceed the described minimum qualifications will be considered for a higher rating than those that meet the minimum qualifications and/or not currently employed by the Offeror.

Any key personnel resume that does not clearly demonstrate meeting the minimum qualifications for the stated labor category in Section H will be rated as a deficiency and therefore an unsatisfactory proposal not eligible for award.

Failure to provide letters of commitment for all key personnel that are not currently employed by the offeror, or subcontractor/teaming partner will result in a deficiency and therefore an unsatisfactory proposal not eligible for award.

Subfactor 4: Quality Control Plan The quality control plan will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it

1) ensures that quality inspections meet or exceed the QASP standards,

2) identifies and prevents recurrences of performance deficiencies, and

3) describes how rework will be minimized or avoided.

M.2.1.3 FACTOR 3: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

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

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

• Confidence that the offeror can satisfy all the current and future requirements of this procurement.

M.2.1.4 FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

PBGC is seeking to determine whether each Offeror has demonstrated, through past performance, the ability to accomplish the work required by this PWS. Therefore, this factor shall be evaluated on the basis of relevant past performance information contained in the proposal as well as information from references provided by the Offeror and from any other reliable source available to the PBGC such as an official past performance database and/or other government and local agencies (e.g. CPARS, PPIRS, FAPIIS, etc.).

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), PBGC will take into consideration past performance information of predecessor companies, key personnel with relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform critical functions under this Contract.

For teaming, partners’ past performance will be considered the work that the vendor has performed that shows that they have the capability to successfully complete the tasks identified in the solicitation at minimum risk to the government.

The PBGC will evaluate each offeror’s past performance based on the Questionnaires received to confirm that they are relevant and recent. PBGC will only consider the first three Questionnaires received for the proposed prime contractor and the first Questionnaire for each Subcontractor. Those Questionnaires that are determined to be relevant and recent will then be assigned an adjectival rating based on the information provided by the customer reference. PBGC will determine the past performance rating of each proposal by rolling the individual Questionnaire ratings into an overall past performance rating.

Offerors are requested complete Section I of each Questionnaire with a contract that the offeror has performed (or is performing) which is relevant to this procurement, and recent. Relevant is defined as being of the same or similar scope, size, and value. Recent is defined as being within the past three years. Although past performance information for Federal Government contracts is preferred, PBGC will consider information from state or local government contacts, or commercial contracts, if an offeror does not have a sufficient number of Federal Government contracts.

After completion of Part I of the PBGC Past Performance Questionnaires, the offeror is to provide the Questionnaires to the respective customer points of contact. Offerors are to request that these customer points of contact complete Part II of their respective Past Performance Questionnaire and return the complete Questionnaire directly to the PBGC Contracting Officer (using the instructions outlined in Section L.4) for arrival not later than the proposal due date. Failure to receive any Past Performance Questionnaire, receive a Questionnaire from a party other than the customer point of contact, or receive a Questionnaire after the proposal due date will result in the assignment of a rating of “Neutral/Unknown” for that Questionnaire.

Rating As stipulated under FAR Part 15.3, Offerors without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance. Thus, Offerors without a record of relevant Past Performance will be given a “Neutral” rating. Past Performance will be evaluated using the Adjectival Scale.

M.2.1.5 FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION – (VOLUME III)

M.2.5.1 Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s Small Business Participation plan demonstrates the offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. The Government will consider whether the offeror meets or the degree to which it exceeds the Government objective of any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an offeror meets or exceeds.

M.2.5.2 The Government has established the following objectives for this procurement, based on total contract value:

• Small Business (SB) 23.00%

• Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5.00%

• Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.00%

• HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) 0.50%

• Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 1.00%

M.2.1.5.3 The offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Contract Participation Matrix will be evaluated against the Governments objective for each socio- economic category.

M.2.1.5.4 The Government will verify that the size and socio-economic status for each small business subcontractor identified in the Contract Participation Matrix matches the subcontractors written certification. For HUBZone-certified subcontractors identified in the Contract Participation Matrix, the Government will verify the offerors evidence of HUBZone certification IAW FAR clause 52.219-8(d)(2).

M.2.1.5.5 If the socio-economic status claimed in the matrix is not supported by the written certifications, the proposed percentages associated to the subcontractor for any unsupported category will be adjusted to zero. The government will not upwardly adjust the proposed percentages if the Offeror fails to claim credit for all categories. However, failing to claim credit for all categories will be viewed as not maximizing opportunities for small businesses.

M.2.1.6 FACTOR 6: SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN –

(VOLUME IV)

M.2.1.6.1 The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan:

1) Demonstrates the offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses.

2) Demonstrates how the plan meets or the degree to which it exceeds the Government objective of any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an offeror meets or exceeds.

3) Demonstrates the extent to which the offeror commits to using small businesses in this procurement. An offeror who proposes little to no participation for multiple socio-economic categories will be rated lower than other firms who show more commitment through high percentages of participation.

4) Meets the requirements of FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements. The evaluation of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be on the basis of total contract value.

PBGC will evaluate more favorably those offerors that identify by name, protégé firms, small business teaming partners, joint venture or other subcontractors.

The offeror’s historical small business performance will be evaluated on the probability of compliance with the requirement based on its recent performance record in the area of small business utilization, with specific consideration given to the following:

1) Compliance with all terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small

Business Concerns (when required on recent contracts). This shall include timely payments to Small Business subcontractors. If the offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be rated Neutral.

2) Compliance with all terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when required on the recent contracts). If the offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be rated Neutral.

3) Actual small business utilization compared to small business subcontracting goals identified in the approved subcontracting plan for each recent contract that included a subcontracting plan. Offeror compliance with reporting requirements including Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISR)/Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSR).

Offeror achievement on each individual goal stated within the subcontracting plan including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved. If the offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be rated Neutral.

M.3 EVALUATION OF PRICE (VOLUME II)

Price offers will not be point scored, assigned a numerical weight, nor adjectivally rated.

The IDIQ pricing will be evaluated for overall price reasonableness and completeness using the Price Schedule in Section B. The individual labor rates will also be evaluated to assess the reasonableness of the rate. Offerors are cautioned against proposing unrealistically low labor rates or obvious inconsistencies between the reasonableness of the rates across the requested labor categories.

The Task Order One Pricing will be used to evaluate the offerors’ proposed prices for the award of the base ID/IQ contract. Reasonableness and completeness of the task order price proposals will be based on the labor build up (labor category and rates) to ensure the IDIQ labor categories and rates were used in the development of the pricing for the base and option years.

M.4 AWARD ON INITIAL PROPOSALS

Pursuant to FAR clause 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, the Government reserves the right to award the contract without discussions, based on initial offers.

M.5 EXCHANGES WITH OFFERORS

Should award be made without discussions, the PBGC may hold limited exchanges defined as clarifications Pursuant to FAR 15.306, to give offeror’s an opportunity to clarify minor or clerical errors. The PBGC may hold limited exchanges with offerors before establishment of the competitive range.

M.6 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

Pursuant to FAR Part 15.306(c), if discussions are held, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals. If the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range. The PBGC will provide the Offerors in the competitive range a list of its proposal’s weaknesses. All Offerors will be required to respond to these weaknesses in writing and provide final proposals.