Attachment_1a-EVALUATION_CRITERIA_FOR_SELECTION-Mortuary_Services_8-9-2019.pdf

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

CLINICAL CENTER

SOCIAL WORK DEPARTMENT

STATEMENT OF WORK-MORTUARY SERVICES

P a g e 1 | 5

TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

The Trade-Off selection procedures will be used to make a best value award decision. Technical is significantly more important than price. The Government intends to make a firm fixed-price award, with some cost reimbursable components but reserves the right to make no award as a result of the Request for Proposals. Best Value is defined as those most advantageous offers, price and other non-price factors considered, that are consistent with the Government’s stated evaluation criteria. This may result in award being made to higher-rated, higher-priced offeror(s), where the Contracting Officer determines that the benefits Technical offered by the offeror outweighs the price difference.

The Government reserves the right to award this contract based on initial proposals without holding discussions. Therefore, the initial proposal shall contain the offeror's best terms and conditions.

Prior to award of this contract, the technical evaluation team representing the NIH will conduct a site visit of the funeral home facility. This evaluation will become a part of the overall technical evaluation score.

Only those vendors whose formal proposals pass the initial selection criteria with highly scored evaluations will be considered for the site visit. An offeror would need to receive an acceptable rating on the Site Survey to be considered for award.

All facilities must meet the standard funeral home requirements established by local, state and federal laws. The contractor's building shall have complete facilities for maintaining the highest standards of solemnity, reverence, assistance to the family and for prescribed ceremonial services. The contractor's preparation room shall be clean, sanitary, and adequately equipped.

The contractor's funeral home, furnishings, grounds and surrounding area shall present a clean and well-kept appearance.

All facilities must be within a 25 mile radius of the NIH Clinical Center (10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD

20892).

MANDATORY CRITERIA

- Confirmation in writing that the facility of service is within 25 miles of the NIH Clinical Center

- Copy of Certificate(s) of current establishment state and/or local licensure

- Copy of key personnel licensure

Technical Capability - Factor 1.

Subfactor 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical approach based on the information contained in the technical proposal to determine the extent of its understanding of the requirements, including the soundness of the offeror's proposed technical approach/ methodology to effectively meet and comply with

P a g e 2 | 5 the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work to ensure successful performance of this procurement and any risks associated with the offeror's technical capability.

Subfactor 2. MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The offeror organizational and management approach structure (considering both prime Contractor and all subcontracted portion of the effort, if proposed) will be evaluated in terms of ability to provide the services proposed, to integrate the various functions outlined in the SOW and deal with problems and enhance control. The proposed lines of communication, level of authority and responsibility will be evaluated to ensure that the necessary resources are available to meet all areas of the SOW.

The Offeror shall provide detailed, specific information in its offer specifying and defining the lines of authority and communication between the Offeror’s organization and the Government for clarity, efficiency, and effectiveness. The Offeror shall provide responsibility and organizational flow chart for management staff.

The offeror shall provide a detailed business approach that addresses the capability to handle burial needs for all religious or cultural services which may be required and for services to be provided on or around Government Holidays and Government Closures.

Subfactor 3: QUALIFICATIONS / EXPERIENCE

The Government will evaluate the offeror and key personnel experiences and the resume(s) of its proposed key personnel to determine the nature and extent of the offeror's successful completion of similar services related to Funeral and Burial Services. Demonstration of all required licenses, certifications, and or permits is highly important for this criteria. All mandatory criteria must be addressed.

Subfactor 4: Personally Identifiable Information (PII) Security Plan

The Offeror shall submit a PII Security Plan with its technical proposal that addresses each of the following items:

1. Verify the information categorization to ensure the identification of the PII requiring protection.

2. Verify the existing risk assessment.

3. Identify the Contractor’s existing internal corporate policy that addresses the information protection requirements of the SOW.

4. Verify the adequacy of the Contractor’s existing internal corporate policy that addresses the information protection requirements of the SOW.

5. Identify any revisions, or development, of an internal corporate policy to adequately address the information protection requirements of the SOW.

P a g e 3 | 5

6. For PII to be physically transported to or stored at a remote site, verify that the security controls of NIST Special Publication 800-53 involving the encryption of transported information will be implemented.

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-53-Rev3/sp800-53-rev3-final_updated-errata_05- 01-2010.pdf

7. When applicable, verify how the NIST Special Publication 800-53 security controls requiring authentication, virtual private network (VPN) connections will be implemented.

8. When applicable, verify how the NIST Special Publication 800-53 security controls enforcing allowed downloading of PII will be implemented.

9. Identify measures to ensure subcontractor compliance with safeguarding PII.

The details contained in the Offeror’s PII Security Plan must be commensurate with the size and complexity of the contract requirements based on the System Categorization specified above in the subparagraph entitled Security Categories and Levels. The Offeror’s PII Security Plan will be evaluated by the Government for appropriateness and adequacy.

The following adjectival ratings will be used in evaluating each offeror’s technical proposal.

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unable to be awarded.

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-53-Rev3/sp800-53-rev3-final_updated-errata_05-01-2010.pdf http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-53-Rev3/sp800-53-rev3-final_updated-errata_05-01-2010.pdf

P a g e 4 | 5

Past Performance- Factor 2

The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting present and past performance evaluations, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal, any other source available to the Government and data obtained from other sources to include, but not limited, to data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

After the Government has evaluated Offerors’ past performance for recency and relevancy, the Government will evaluate Quality of Performance (how well the contractor has performed on contracts).

All Contractors shall provide a minimum of three (3) references. References should demonstrate the ability of the Contractor to perform jobs similar in scope to the size, nature and complexity of the outlined Proposal. The references shall include the:

Company name, address, contact person, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address, if available, and number of years Contractor has serviced the referenced account;

Scope of Work performed within the past three (3) years for each referenced account.

Total yearly value of the contract work performed

The Government will assign an Unknown /Neutral rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably, to Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance record; or, the offeror’s performance record is not available; or, the information is inadequate such that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

“Recency” - To be recent, the performance effort must have occurred within 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

“Relevancy” – Relevant performance includes products or services that are the same or similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the effort described in the solicitation.

The following ratings shall be used in assessing an offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy

Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

P a g e 5 | 5

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and Magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The following ratings shall be used for the Performance Confidence Assessment.

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/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/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/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/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “unknown” past performance and their performance confidence assessment rating will be “unknown confidence (neutral).”

Price - Factor 3:

The proposed price will be evaluated but not scored. The price evaluation will determine whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable in relation to the solicitation requirements. The proposed price shall be entirely compatible with the technical proposal.

Although price is the least important evaluation factor, it will not be ignored. The degree of importance of the proposed price will increase with the degree of equality of the quotations in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based.

The option pricing proposed is applicable to the contract and will be evaluated.