RFP_Technical_Evaluation_Information.docx

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

BUREAU OF INFORMATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

MITIGATING LOCAL DISPUTES IN LIBERIA PHASE III

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

REFERENCE NUMBER: AQMMA18R0163

SECTION 1 -

EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Methodology

The Technical Evaluation Factors (i.e. non-Cost/Price) will be evaluated using an adjectival (Excellent, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable) rating scheme. The Non-Technical Evaluation Factor (i.e. Cost/Price) will be evaluated as detailed in this section. An “Unacceptable” rating in any factor will result in the elimination of an offeror’s proposal from consideration for award of the task order.

The following evaluation factors apply to this task order procurement and will be used to evaluate the offer:

1. Technical Approach

2. Past Performance

3. Management Approach

4. Similar Experience

5. Cost/Price

For this Request for Proposal (RFP), technical merit (captured in the four (4) technical evaluation factors enumerated above, taken together) is more important than price.

The relative order of importance for the evaluation factors are: Factor 1 (Technical Approach) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) are the most important evaluation factors and are equally important to each other. Factor 3 (Management Approach) is less important than Factors 1 and 2 but more important than Factor 4 (Similar Experience).

2.1 Technical Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Approach

2.1.1 Proposal Requirement Instructions:

The contractor shall provide a technical plan to meet all SOW requirements and a detailed explanation of methodologies to meet the program requirements. The contractor shall NOT propose any items within its technical proposal that are not priced within its price proposal.

2.1.2 Proposal Evaluation:

Sub-Factor 1: Work Plan The Government will evaluate the technical proposal and contract work breakdown structure to the extent it identifies innovation and the methods of service delivery to be employed by the offeror to meet the program and mission requirements set forth in task order SOW.

(a)The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated by assessing the likelihood that the offeror’s proposed technical approach will meet the Government’s requirements, including a sound explanation of how implementation of the proposed technical solution will deliver timely, flexible, responsive, compliant, and cost effective services to meet the needs of INL and approach to mitigate associated risks such as delays from unfilled contractor positions.

(b)This factor will be used to evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach meets all requirements and challenges of the solicitation and demonstrates a clear understanding of mission objectives.

(c)The Government will evaluate whether the proposed technical approach includes evidence of specific methods, techniques, and approaches that demonstrate the ability to meet task order requirements.

(d)The Government will evaluate the technical approach for evidence that the comprehensive timeline and schedule to include mobilization of personnel and resources serves as the framework for the offeror’s process for delivering quality services and clearly outlines “how” the offeror will achieve results to meet the program and mission requirements.

Sub-Factor 2: Risk Mitigation

(a) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal accounts for significant inherent and introduced technical, schedule, and cost risks along with the approach to achieving task order requirements.

(b) The offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated ability to mitigate the impact of increased costs and methods to overcome any difficulties.

(c) The offeror will be evaluated on their approach to identifying potential risks stemming from operating in Liberia and detailed approach to address these risks.

(d) The offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated awareness of the security situation and personal protection requirements, including their approach to mitigating health/illness risks, and developing a medical evacuation plan.

Sub-Factor 3: Operational/Situational Competency

1. The offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated awareness of the current political environment in Liberia. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the technical approach accounts for the operational and situational impact on program implementation caused by the current political environment. The offeror will be evaluated on their understanding of the political processes, institutions and stakeholders.

1. The offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated ability to identify the specific country conditions affect their ability to meet task order requirements.

1. The offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated awareness of the current situation within the County Security Councils, District Security Councils, and Community Forums.

1. The offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated ability to achieve results through dispute mediation, community engagement, and financial sustainability.

Evaluation Factor 1:

Technical Approach

2.2 Technical Evaluation Factor 2: Past Performance

2.2.1 Proposal Requirement Instructions

The offeror shall provide the last three performance appraisals from any government contract that the offeror has held. Additionally the offeror shall include at least two additional most recent performance appraisals for similar work requested in this request for quotes.

2.2.2 Evaluation Criteria

a) Evaluation of past performance will allow the Government to determine whether the offeror consistently delivered quality services in a timely manner, while utilizing adequate cost controls. Past performance will be evaluated for relevant contracts performed by the offeror during the last five (5) years consistent with the size, scope and complexity of this task order. The Government may contact references cited on the Past Performance Questionnaire as well as other relevant individuals. The Government may obtain additional information on relevant past performance from other sources such as Government past performance databases.

b) Past performance on contracts that are more technically relevant to task order and similar in size, scope and complexity will receive greater consideration than performance on contracts that are less relevant.

c) In general, past performance will be evaluated on the extent of client satisfaction with the previous performance of the offeror; the offeror’s effectiveness in managing and directing resources; the offeror’s demonstration of reasonable and cooperative behavior in dealing with clients; the offeror’s quality of previously performed services the offeror’s ability to control costs and manage contract activities; and the offeror’s effectiveness in meeting schedules in providing services and products.

d) If the Government receives, for a given offeror, no Past Performance Questionnaires or only irrelevant questionnaires, and can locate no other sources of relevant past performance information for the offeror, the offeror will receive a neutral (neither favorable nor unfavorable) Past Performance rating.

e) The Government will also take into consideration all past performance relevant or indicative to a Contractor’s invoicing practices. Any performance that demonstrates delayed or inadequate contract invoicing will be deemed unfavorable.

f) The Government will NOT/NOT consider any proposals from offerors who have received a CPARs rating indicating that the evaluator would NOT/NOT have awarded the same contract to the contractor based off of their performance on that contract, within the past 3 years.

Evaluation Factor 6:

Past Performance

2.3 Technical Evaluation Factor 3: Management Approach

2.3.1 Proposal Requirement Instructions

The offeror shall provide its home office support plan, including all home office support that will be provided to the USG and their field personnel. The offeror must provide its field office oversight plans, including but not limited to the frequency, duration, and purpose of home office personnel visits to the field. The offeror must provide the resumes of all key personnel and all proposed additional key personnel. The offeror must provide a draft quality control plan that highlights all the areas of the SOW that need to be monitored for performance achievement. Additionally the offeror must provide a draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan to detail how the offeror plans to execute the monitoring and evaluation of these performance metrics.

2.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

Sub-Factor 1: Quality Control Plan and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(a) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Quality Control Plan, with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, provides evidence of a framework for the offeror’s process for delivering quality services that clearly outlines “how” the offeror will achieve results to meet the program and mission requirements.

(b) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Quality Control Plan, with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, adequately addresses how the offeror will ensure quality, schedule, cost, and performance.

(c) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide sufficient oversight to effectively manage and integrate team partners, and the flow-down process of its Quality Control plan to ensure consistency and continuity among the team.

(d) The offeror must demonstrate an ability to address its process for effectively identifying and resolving problems arising between team partners.

(e) The offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which the technical approach addresses notification of issues affecting contract performance, contract impact, proposed mitigation, and provide for contractor self-oversight.

Sub-Factor 2: Contractor Home Office Support

(a) The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s Home Office Support plan to ensure that adequate resources are available to field personnel and Government personnel.

(b) The offeror will be evaluated on the technical expertise and experience of its home office program management personnel as it relates to similar task orders.

Sub-Factor 3: Key Personnel

(a) The offeror will be evaluated on whether the key personnel resumes submitted with the technical proposal meet the qualifications outlined in the SOW.

(b) The contractor will be evaluated on their proposed additional key personnel which may or may not be necessary to meet mission needs and activities in the field that were not identified by the SOW and the qualifications the offeror proposes to meet those needs.

The Government will use the following adjectival ratings to evaluate:

Evaluation Factor 3:

Management Approach

2.4 Technical Evaluation Factor 4: Similar Experience

2.4.1 Proposal Requirement Instructions

The offeror shall provide:

2.4.2 Evaluation Criteria

a) This Factor will be evaluated on the basis of the offeror’s relevant experience during the last five (5) years. The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror’s experience, including planning and implementation of contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to this task order. The Government may contact references cited on the Similar Experience Template, in addition to other sources of experience information available to the Government.

b) The information presented in the offeror’s proposal will provide the primary input for evaluation of this factor. The Government reserves the right to verify the specifics of current or previous contracts described by the offeror’s proposal.

c) The Government will evaluate the extent to which offeror’s cited similar experience is similar to the requirements and constraints included in Section C. Greater consideration will be given to technical solutions that demonstrate successful implementation of systems similar in size, scope and complexity to this task order.

The Government will use the following adjectival ratings to evaluate the Similar Experience Factor:

Evaluation Factor 4:

Similar Experience

2.5 Price

2.5.1 Proposal Requirement

The Contractor shall provide a cost model along with the supporting information needed to evaluate the reasonableness of proposed cost/prices. The cost model shall provide a detailed breakdown of the cost items, including the number of resources under each labor category for the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) that make up the orderable service, as applicable i.e., Transition Services[footnoteRef:1], Firm-Fixed Price (FFP)[footnoteRef:2], Time and Material (T&M)[footnoteRef:3], Travel Expenses and Other Direct Costs (ODC)[footnoteRef:4] by base year and the subsequent option years. Each offeror is advised to submit its most competitive offer. [1: Includes the CLIN, Service Description, Estimated Hours, Burdened Hourly Rate, and Extended Estimated Price.] [2: Includes the CLIN, Service Description, Unit, Quantity, Unit Price, and Extended Total Price. ] [3: Includes the CLIN, Service Description,, Estimated Hours, Burdened Hourly Rate, and Extended Estimated Price.] [4: Includes the price for office space, vehicles, insurance, utilities and office supplies.]

The base year, a total of twelve (12) months, includes and shall be broken down into a two (2) month transition period and a ten (10) month performance period. Task order option years’ one (1) through two (2) shall consist of a twelve (12) month performance period. Comment by Lugo, Katherine W: Does our excel price sheet reflect it.

The CLIN structure related to this acquisition. Shall be the following:

CLIN 1 shall be firm fixed price and be inclusive of ALL labor costs including overhead, profit, fee, salary, allowances, DBA insurance, management costs, etc. All costs should be broken down and included in the price proposal. Any and all costs not inserted and listed in the price proposal for labor shall be considered to be a part of overhead and paid for as a part of the firm fixed price.

CLIN 2 shall be Other Direct Costs. All non-labor and non-travel costs associated office management and operations should be billed to this CLIN to include vehicle purchasing, vehicle insurance, office rent, utilities, office supplies, etc. These costs shall be direct costs only, all indirect costs shall be placed in CLIN 5.

CLIN 3 shall be indirect costs but are fixed at $400,000 base year and $300,000 each for OY 1 and 2. CLIN 3 includes all purchases of supplies and special projects, as approved by the COR, to directly support the operation of the Community Forums, District Security Councils, and County Security Councils. These cost shall be direct costs only, all indirect costs shall be placed in CLIN 5.

CLIN 4 is the Travel CLIN and will be inclusive of all domestic and international travel and will be set at $100,000 per year. The contractor must notify the CO and COR upon expenditure of 75% of the fund, and INL will determine if additional funds should be added.

CLIN 5 is the Pool for Indirect Costs and will be Firm Fixed Price.

The Department has assigned the specific CLINS for the major functions along with the contract type. The offeror has flexibility and shall create its own pricing template. The offeror shall also include all pricing information required by the Department’s RFP[footnoteRef:5]. [5: The offeror has the flexibility to change the Other Direct Costs (ODC) CLIN major function areas as long as the CLIN structure is maintained in its pricing tables.]

The Contractor shall not deviate from the plug numbers and/or breakout labor for these CLINS[footnoteRef:6]. There are no additional requirements associated with the Government Plug Number CLINS. [6: The Government expects that the contractor will provide direct support assistance utilizing CLIN 3 funds of $50,000 to each of the 6 counties with an additional $50,000 for each of the two new counties receiving support in the base year. The contractor will propose for Government approval individual activities and support supplies after award. ]

If offeror bills corporate administrative, contract, billing, and other staff to task orders, the offeror shall provide the information in its cost/price proposal. Each offeror shall clearly disclose its General and Administrative (G&A) and material handling fees associated with Other Direct Costs, including travel.

If subcontractors are being proposed, each offeror shall identify the proposed subcontractors and provide an explanation of “why” and “how” the proposed subcontractors were selected. Each offeror shall also identify any additional Government Furnished Property and/or Information required for performance, if applicable.

The offeror shall identify any deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions made during the preparation of the Cost/Price Proposal, by CLIN, if applicable. The offeror will explain any deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions taken with respect to the RFP. Any deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions taken must carry sufficient amplification and justification to permit evaluation. Such deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions will not of themselves, automatically cause a proposal to be termed unacceptable. A large number of exceptions, or one or more significant deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions not providing any obvious benefit to the Government may, however, result in rejection of such proposal(s) as unacceptable. Highlight all deviations, exceptions, or conditional assumptions in the margin of the proposal where they appear in the text.

2.5.2 Evaluation Criteria

The Government will calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)[footnoteRef:7] for the program by summing the Transition; Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Time and Material; Other Direct Costs (Travel and other than Travel); and all additional CLINS proposed by the Offeror. Each Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for proposed cost/price; reasonableness. The Government will vet all companies that will perform work under this task order. The Government will evaluate the deviations/exceptions and/or conditional assumptions for acceptability. [7: Includes the Government Plug Numbers and the Contractor proposed costs per CLIN]

SECTION 2 -

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORMAT

3.1 GENERAL

DoS will validate and evaluate Contractor’s quotations submitted in response to this RFP. Generally, quotations will be reviewed to ensure: (1) preparation in accordance with instructions of this RFP; (2) compliance with the requirements specified in the RFP; and (3) accuracy of price quotation.

3.2 FORMAT FOR TECHNICAL AND COST/PRICE QUOTATION

3.2.1 Organization of Volumes

The offeror quotations shall be organized in the following volumes:

Volume I Technical Proposal

Part D: Similar Experience

Volume II Cost/Price

3.2.2 General Content Requirements

The proposals (Volumes I and II) shall include a signed and dated cover letter and shall include the following: The RFP reference number; date the RFP was issued; the DoS issuing office, location, and contact person; the closing date and time of the RFP (for submission of proposals); and the name, address (street, city, state, zip) of the offeror submitting the proposal. However, the cover letter(s) shall contain no pricing or technical information. Any such information provided in the cover letter will not be evaluated. The cover letter shall also acknowledge amendments, as applicable, to the RFP. Please note: The Department of State Seal is intended for use on official government documents only.

Each page within each volume and section shall be numbered using a consistent numbering scheme. This scheme shall also be used for all supporting documentation, such as charts, figures, diagrams, etc. that are included in each volume. Page numbering schemes that are difficult to track are not acceptable. The page limitations by volume are described below:

Volume I – Technical Proposal

There is a one hundred (100) page limit for the entire technical proposal.

Volume II – Cost/Price Proposal

There is no page limit on Volume III, Cost/Price. The Offeror shall provide a link to their web-based GSA Schedule Contract.

3.2.3 Exclusions from the Page Limitations

Following are the exclusions from the page limitations:

Volume I – Technical Proposal

a. Cover Letter

b. Past Performance

c. Table of Contents

d. Dividers, Tabs, and Cover Sheets

e. Glossary of acronyms

f. Resumes

g. Compliance Matrix

h. Contract Work Breakdown Structure

Volume II – Cost/Price Proposal:

There is no page limit on the submission requirements for Volume II. However, offerors shall ensure that the cost/price proposal, including the cover letter, does not include any information that should be contained in Volume I, Technical Proposal. Any technical information placed in Volume II will not be passed on to the Technical Evaluation Team and such technical information will not be evaluated at all.

3.2.4 General Format

Following is the specified format for Volume I, Technical Proposal:

a. Pages are to be standard 8 ½” by 11” size;

b. 12-point size type shall be used. The font shall be Times Roman. The font size for tables and figures, and any other type of inserts can be no smaller than 8 point; The font size for any graphics as it appears on the printed page can be no smaller than 8 point;

c. Margins shall be one-inch at top/bottom and left/right of the page and pages may not be reduced form. Headers and footers are allowed in the margins and their font size can be no smaller than 10 point;

d. Pages shall be printed single-sided; and

e. Foldouts are limited to 11” to 17” size paper and shall count as two pages towards the page limit.

Following is the specified format for Volume II, Cost/Price Proposal:

a. Pages are to be standard 8 ½” by 11” size;

b. 12-point size type shall be used. The font shall be Times Roman. The font size for tables and figures, and any other type of inserts can be no smaller than 8 point; The font size for any graphics as it appears on the printed page can be no smaller than 8 point; and

c. Margins shall be one-inch at top/bottom and left/right of the page and pages may not be reduced form. Headers and footers are allowed in the margins and their font size can be no smaller than 10 point.

Caution: Pages submitted in excess of the page limits enumerated above will not be evaluated. Text and graphics with font size smaller than the minimum specified will not be evaluated. The page limitations apply to the initial offer, revisions and final proposal submission (if applicable).

Each volume shall contain the following additional items:

Cover: The cover shall indicate the following:

Table of Contents: Each volume shall contain a Table of Contents, which shall provide sufficient detail in order that all the important elements are easily located. The use of tables and dividers is encouraged. No content within these pages will be considered for evaluation. Offerors shall ensure these document pages are used solely for organization of the proposals.

Requirements for Style: Each offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly and concisely describes and defines the contractor’s response to the requirements contained in the RFP. Use of general or vague statements such as “standard procedures will be used” or “good engineering practices” will not satisfy this requirement. Simply repeating or paraphrasing the RFP requirements without substantive, meaningful discussion will not be acceptable. Unnecessary elaboration or presentation beyond that which is sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is not desired and may be construed as an indication of the offeror’s lack of understanding of the requirements or cost consciousness. Elaborate artwork or visual or other presentation aids is neither necessary nor desired. The desire is for clear succinct pictorials, graphs, etc.

3.2.5 Use of Non-Government Support for Evaluations

Contractor support services may be used to assist the Government in performing technical evaluations of offerors’ proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Support contractors, if used, will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to provide advice on specialized matter or on particular problems. Support contractors may participate as technical advisors to a source selection board. However, in no event shall support contractors participate as voting members of any source selection board.

ATTACHMENT B

PAST PERFORMANCE CONTRACT PROFILE

Past Performance Profile – Contract Number

Offeror:

Performed as Prime or Subcontractor:

Federal Agency Supported:

Points of Contact

Contractual:

Name:

Organization:

Address:

Telephone Number:

FAX Number:

Email Address:

COR/COTR:

Name:

Organization:

Address:

Telephone Number:

FAX Number:

Email Address:

Project Location(s) [State or Country]:

Number of Full-Time Project Personnel:

Actual Annual Contract Dollars (not Contract Ceiling Value):

Original Annual Contract Value:

Current Annual Contract Value:

Explanation of Variance if applicable:

Period of Performance:

Type of Award (Competitive, Sole-Source, Performance Based, etc):

Contract Type (Firm Fixed Price, Time and Materials, Cost Plus, etc.):

Descriptions of Work Performed, including Scope and Complexity of the Effort:

Technical, Cost or Schedule Problems Encountered and Resolution:

Innovative Solution Applied, Cost-Savings Realized or Recognition Received:

Actual Results Achieved against Performance Standards:

image1.wmf