Evaluation_Criteria,_19-236-SOL-00008.pdf

Tele-Behavioral Health Center of Excellence

Technical Support Services for Education and Meeting Activities

Source Selection Plan: Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Factors

The Contractor will be evaluated for suitability for this contract based upon the following evaluation factors.

A. Technical Capability Factor B. Past Performance Factor

C. Price Factor

A. Technical Capability Factor

Information shall be precise, factual, detailed, and complete. Offerors should not assume that the evaluation team is aware of company abilities, capabilities, plans, facilities, organization, or any other pertinent fact that is important to accomplishment of work. Offerors must submit resumes. Resumes must include information relating to: (a) Professional Education; (b) Certifications; and (c) Previous jobs.

Technical acceptability will be determined by review of information submitted by the Offeror, which must provide a description in sufficient detail to show that services offered meet the Government’s requirement in accordance with the Scope of Work (SOW). The Offeror shall:

1. Demonstrate intermediate experience with personal computers.

2. Demonstrate advanced experience with Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Office 2016 programs

(including Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access).

3. Identify any experience with Adobe Connect software and other similar meeting interfaces

(preferred skill).

4. Demonstrate the ability communicate both orally and in written format across many platforms.

This includes, but is not limited to: Email, instant messaging, message/discussion boards, etc.

5. Demonstrate advanced data processing skills and knowledge required to process the basic functions in a virtual learning system (TBHCE’s current virtual learning system is Adobe Connect).

6. Demonstrate the skills and ability to utilize the TBHCE customer service ticketing software (currently Groove). The ticketing system collects all customer support requests (related to Adobe Connect or other TBHCE education and training activities) and allows the team to respond to customer inquiries.

7. Demonstrate the ability to respond to general inquiries regarding user account provisioning, opening, modifying, and closing tickets, etc.

8. Demonstrate advanced analytical knowledge, skills, and abilities required to problem solve issues faced by end users. Common issues include issues with virtual learning software, log on problems, sound issues, etc. Must demonstrate the ability to collect, review, and analyze the existing data and/or problem to generate an innovative solution that must be tested or confirmed before being discussing with the end user.

9. Demonstrate responsive, timely, and professional customer service/technical assistance skills and the ability to effectively communicate general information, instructions, analyses, and solutions in written and oral communication.

10. Demonstrate experience in training users on a one-to-one basis via remote means.

11. Demonstrate the ability to acquire technical and administrative knowledge of the IHS virtual learning systems, methods, applications, techniques, and procedures.

12. Demonstrate the technical knowledge of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29

U.S.C. 794d) and the ability to convert electronic content to ensure compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d).

The Technical Capability Factor indicates, for each Offeror, the quality of the work to be performed and the ability of the Offeror to accomplish what is proposed. The government will evaluate the overall understanding and approach to accomplish the requirements of the Scope of Work. The Technical Capability Factor will be adjectivally scored. Adjectival rating used to score the Technical Capability factors are as follows:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITION

EXCELLENT

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

VERY GOOD

A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over- all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

GOOD

A proposal having no deficiency which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not detract from the Offeror’s response.

FAIR

A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

POOR

A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

The following definitions will be used by the evaluation committee to classify the findings of the evaluation of the Offerors.

DEFINITION

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength An aspect of the proposal that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength

Some aspect of the proposal that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

B. Past Performance Factor

The Offeror shall submit the information set forth below for the prime Offeror and any subcontractor or teaming partner.

a. The Offeror shall have a satisfactory record of integrity, business ethics and provide a list of all

Government or commercial contracts and sub-contracts relevant in scope and size to this anticipated effort over the past five years. For each, identify:

i. Contract number

ii. Government agency or company that awarded the contract

iii. The type of contract (e.g., FFP, T&M, etc.)

iv. Brief description of the work

v. Contract value/hourly wage

vi. Contract performance dates

vii. Name, title, telephone number, and email address of at least two people knowledgeable with contract performance

viii. Name, telephone number and email address of the Contracting

Officer and Contracting Officer’s Representative for any Government contract

b. Preference will be given to Offerors with knowledge of the Indian Health Service healthcare system.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine whether it is relevant to the SOW of this procurement. Consideration will be given to: overall contract performance, contract type, contract size, and type of services provided. The Government will evaluate the information provided, questionnaire submitted, and Government’s past performance databases, and other sources available to the Government. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, shall receive a neutral rating in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Past Performance will not be numerically scored but will be evaluated using the following levels of confidence ratings:

ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITION

VERY HIGH LEVEL

OF CONFIDENCE

Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more significant strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist.)

HIGH LEVEL OF

CONFIDENCE

Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Expected to accomplish contract requirements in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. Only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths outbalance any weakness.)

MODERATE LEVEL OF

Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; and fully responsive to contract requirements. Reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.)

LOW LEVEL OF

Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition. Performance meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards, producing adequate results. Reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements. ** (One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.)

VERY LOW LEVEL OF

Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas. Remedial action required in one or more areas. Problems in one or more areas resulting in adverse effects overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses exist.)

NEUTRAL

The case of an Offeror 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 [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)

C. Price Factor

The price proposal shall be written in a manner that is consistent with the Offeror’s normal, disclosed, and/or approved estimating and accounting practices. Monetary amounts, other than direct labor rates, shall be expressed to the closest whole dollar amount.

Although the price information is not numerically scored and receives no adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the Offeror understands the requirement and the resources required to satisfy it. Price analysis techniques will be applied to the Evaluated Price to ensure that a fair and reasonable price is paid by the Government. The “Evaluated Prices” will be compared with the lower “Evaluated Prices” being more favorable than higher “Evaluated Prices.”

Evaluation Methodology:

The TeleBehavioral Health Center of Excellence (TBHCE) Supervisor will evaluate the quotations. The quotations shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria (listed above) and relative weights set forth in the solicitation. The evaluator will read each quotation and describe, in writing, the strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies identified to support the scores given to each proposal. The scores will be consistent with the evaluator’s written narratives; i.e., a high rating should be supported by a narrative identifying a significant number of strengths and a minimum number of weaknesses. Any quotation that is unrealistic, in terms of technical approach, schedule commitments, and or costs (high or low) will be deemed poor.

Basis for Award: Selection of the successful Offeror will be made based on the evaluation criteria (listed above). The quotations will be evaluated and a contract awarded under the Best Value Continuum approach to permit tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. This will allow the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror who meets or exceeds the technical acceptability standards established in the factors referenced above.

Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

Source Selection Decision: In order to determine which Offeror represents the best value to the government, the source selection authority will rank the offerors from best to worst. This will be accomplished by making a series of paired comparisons among the offerors by trading off the marginal differences in non-cost/price factors and price. If one Offeror has both the better capability and lower price, then that Offeror will be the better value. If one Offeror has the better capability and a higher price, the source selection authority will decide whether the difference in capability is worth the difference in price. If the source selection authority considers the better capability to be worth the higher price, then the more capable, higher priced Offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced Offeror will be the better value. The source selection authority will continue to make paired comparisons until it is decided which Offeror represents the best value.