19AQMM22R0154_Draft Evaluation Criteria.docx

SECTION L-VOLUME IV-PAST PERFORMANCE

(a) Tab A- Identification of Contract Team

Describe in detail the proposed contract team’s past performance. The proposed contract team includes the Prime Offeror, each proposed joint venture partner, and each major subcontractor. For the purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that will likely perform more than 15% of the required effort.

For each team member provide the name, DUNS number and CAGE code, complete address, and POC information. Describe what portions of the work will be performed by each team member.

(b) Tab B-Identification of Recent and Relevant Effort

An assessment of the team’s past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered most favorably, past performance should be within the last three (3) years from the date of the issuance of the solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

The Government will conduct an evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. In determining relevancy for past performance references, consideration will be given to the effort or portion of the effort, to be performed under this contract by offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose performance is being reviewed and evaluated.

Provide a list of no more than five (5) recent references for projects similar in magnitude and complexity to the requirements stated in this solicitation. References listed may include contracts and subcontracts entered into by other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, state, and local governments, and commercial customers. Include the following for each reference:

(1) Name of the contracting activity;

(2) Name of the entity performing the contract (i.e. prime, joint venture partner, or subcontractor);

(3) Contract number;

(4) Period of performance;

(5) Contract type(s);

(6) Total contract value;

(7) Contracting officer, email, and telephone number;

(8) Administrative contracting officer, if different from (7) above, email and telephone number;

(9) Program manager, email, and telephone number;

(10) Description of project;

(11) Detailed description of the work performed by the Offeror or team member; and

(12) Detailed explanation as to why the effort is considered relevant to this solicitation.

If references to predecessor companies, affiliated companies, and/or key personnel are made, explain how past performance of predecessor companies, affiliated companies, and/or key personnel are pertinent to this solicitation.

Offerors with no past performance information shall type “NO PAST PERFORMANCE” in bold letters on a clean sheet of paper place in this tab.

Adverse information must be provided for each contract team member as defined in L.17.2.4(a). Failure to provide the current and complete information about prior contractual performance problems may result in an unfavorable responsibility determination and the Offeror being determined ineligible for award.

(c) Tab C-Adverse Information Provide current and complete information about prior contractual performance problems encountered during the past three (3) years from date of release of this solicitation. Include problems that may have resulted in invoice deductions, cure notices, show cause notices, deficiency letters issued, withholding of payment or similar actions. This information should not be limited only to performance under references for which information has been submitted under paragraph b (Tab B).

Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. If an Offeror believes that any adverse information may be provided as a part of the past performance evaluation process, the Offeror should include a brief explanation of the circumstances pertaining to this data and the position of the Offeror in reference to these circumstances.

If applicable, the Offeror should indicate what steps have been adopted to prevent a recurrence of such situations. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to an unacceptable rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the Offeror to be considered more favorably than without evidence of problem resolution. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support than an Offeror has overcome past problems is required.

Adverse information must be provided for each contract team member as defined in L.17.2.4(a). Failure to provide the current and complete information about prior contractual performance problems may result in an unfavorable responsibility determination and the Offeror being determined ineligible for award.

(d) Tab D-Organizational Structure Change History Many companies have acquired, been acquired, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. To facilitate past performance evaluation include a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify as past performance references. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror, your “roadmap” should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

Organizational structure change history information must be provided for each contract team member as defined in L.17.2.4(a).

(e) Tab E-Subcontractor and Client Authorization Letters The offeror shall submit a Subcontractor Consent Letter executed by each major subcontractor authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information. The Subcontractor Consent Letter must be provided on subcontractor’s letterhead and be signed by an authorized individual.

For each past performance reference involving a commercial customer, the offeror shall submit a Client Authorization Letter. The letter shall authorize the commercial customer to release to the Government requested information on the offeror’s performance. The letter must be provided on company letterhead and signed by an authorized individual.

A Sample Subcontractor Consent Letter is include in Attachment 5A. A sample Client Authorization Letter is included in Attachment 5B. Subcontractor Consent and Client Authorization Letters will not be counted towards the page limitations.

(f) Tab F-Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) For each effort identified under Tab B above submit information in accordance with Attachment 5 (Past Performance Questionnaire). The PPQ must be submitted directly by the assessor(s) to the Government as directed in Attachment 5.

The Offeror must ensure that assessors return completed PPQs to the individuals identified in Attachment 5 prior to the solicitation closing date and time.

SECTION L- VOLUME V - TECHNICAL

(a) Tab A-Subfactor A-Overall Management and Organizational Approach Offeror shall submit a clear and comprehensive description of its overall management and organizational approach to accomplish the requirements of this solicitation. At minimum, the Offeror’s proposal shall include:

a. An organizational chart describing the lines of communication and decision-making authority proposed by the Offeror. Describe the role the Program Management Office in Bogota, the US Corporate resources, major subcontractors, and entities will play in ensuring high quality services will be provided.

b. Describe how offeror proposes to manage all employees and subcontractors under the contract to ensure contract requirements are met.

c. Describe how the Offeror plans to maintain a high level of customer satisfaction and how customer complaints will be handled.

d. Identify two (2) major risks associated with the proposed management and organizational approach and describe strategies the offeror plans to utilize to limit and eliminate the impact to INL Bogota.

(b) Tab B-Subfactor B-Key Personnel The Offeror shall provide:

a. A resume in the format specified in Attachment 7 under Section J. Resumes provided in other formats will not be evaluated. The resume must clearly indicate the proposed individual meets at least the minimum requirements identified in the applicable position description.

b. Provide proof that the proposed individual meets or exceeds the position description, including language and security requirements. If the individual does not currently possess the required security level, describe the preliminary screening performed and explain why the individual is likely to obtain a favorable adjudication by DS or RSO.

c. A commitment letter. The commitment letter shall be signed by both the key person and the Offeror. Failure to submit the required commitment letter will result in the Key Person not being evaluated, negatively affecting the evaluation results. At minimum, the commitment letter must include:

· Name of Key Person

· Position to occupied by the key person

· Narrative Statement describing the key person’s commitment to the contract, including the duration, degree and conclusive nature of the key person’s commitment.

· Key person’s willingness to relocate if necessary; and

· Proposed salary and benefits.

The Government is not interested in the Offeror proposing multiple names as potential candidates for a single position. Propose only one person per key position. If more than one resume is submitted per key position, the resumes will not be evaluated.

(c) Tab C-Subfactor C-Staffing and Compensation Plan Offerors shall submit a Staffing and Compensation Plan addressing the following requirements:

1. Description of methodology and approach to recruit, screen, train, and retain high quality personnel, including a description of processes, procedures, and policies to be utilized.

2. A description of the process for removal of an employee for cause (e.g., major security violation, performance, unethical conduct).

3. A description of how the Offeror plans to ensure qualified employees under the contract will be retained.

4. A description of how the Offeror plans to address possible changes in the INL mission requirements.

5. A description of salary and benefits information for labor categories under the contract. Describe how appropriate salary and benefits levels were determined and the overall approach to salary/wage escalations.

6. If applicable, describe any employee recognition or award program the Offeror plans to utilize to incentivize superior performance by all employees.

(d) Tab D-Subfactor D- Draft Phase-In Plan The Offeror shall submit a Draft Phase-In Plan. The draft plan must be complete, clear, concise, and must demonstrate a thorough understanding of solicitation requirements. The plan shall explain how the Offeror’s phase-in approach maintains quality and minimizes disruption to INL Bogota.

Provide a detailed timeline showing all tasks to be performed, from date of award until assumption of full performance no later than 90 calendar days after date of award, to ensure a smooth transition.

Describe the major risks associated with your proposed phase-in approach and recommend clear implementable strategies to limit or eliminate the impact to INL Bogota.

If the Offeror is the incumbent, the Draft Phase-In Plan must address how the Offeror will make the transition to the new contract, including any work requirements or terms and conditions that did not appear in the incumbent’s current contract.

Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M 13-EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

(a) The Government will utilize the following evaluation factors and subfactors to evaluate proposals.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor A: Overall Management and Organizational Approach Subfactor B: Key Personnel Subfactor C: Staffing and Compensation Plan Subfactor D: Draft Phase-In Plan

(b) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor A (Overall Management and Organizational Approach), Subfactor B (Key Personnel), Subfactor C (Staffing and Compensation Plan) are of equal importance. Subfactor D (Draft Phase-In Plan) will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

SECTION M 14-FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

(a) Ratings. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the ratings described below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. The rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor rating will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical factor.

Note: Weakness, Significant Weakness, and Deficiency are defined in FAR 15.001 (Definitions). An “unacceptable” rating on any Subfactor will render an Offer ineligible for award.

TECHNICAL RATINGS – SUBFACTORS A, B, and C

(b) Evaluation Criteria for Technical Subfactors

i. Subfactor A: Overall Management and Organization Approach This subfactor will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s overall management and organizational approach to accomplish the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed approach:

· Includes an organizational structure that provides clear lines of communication for the program, decentralized corporate decision-making authority, and that is likely to ensure program success.

· Demonstrates the ability to effectively manage the Contract and Task Order requirements, including all personnel and subcontractors.

· Demonstrates Offer’s commitment to customer service and satisfaction.

· Demonstrates a clear understanding of the risks associated with the overall management and organizational approach and provides for effective strategies limit or eliminate the risk to INL Bogota.

ii. Subfactor B: Key Personnel Key Personnel will be evaluated to assess the degree to which the proposed individual meets the minimum requirements of the applicable position description, including language and security requirements.

Commitment letters will be evaluated for the term (duration) of the commitment and conclusive nature of the commitment. The Government will consider lengthened terms of commitment to be more favorable.

The information presented in the Offeror’s proposal, together with the information from any other sources available to the Government, will provide the primary input for the evaluation of this factor. The Government reserves the right to verify the performance of Key Personnel on other contracts. For example, the government may query contract references and other end user representatives regarding the experience of proposed Key Personnel and the quality of their performance.

iii. Subfactor C: Staffing and Compensation Plan The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Staffing and Compensation Plan describes a sound methodology and approach to recruiting, screening, training, fairly compensating, retaining, and terminating (if necessary) personnel under this contract.

The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed under the contract. Compensation that is not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

Additionally, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to retaining current contract employees and adapting to changing mission requirements.

iv. Subfactor D: Draft Phase-In Plan To be considered acceptable, the Draft Phase-In Plan must:

· Be complete, clear, concise, and must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the solicitation requirements.

· Clearly explain how the offeror’s approach is likely to maintain quality and minimize disruptions to INL Bogota.

· Provide detailed timeline showing all tasks to be performed for full assumption of duties within 120 calendar days of contract award.

· For each identified risk, proposes clear and implementable strategies to limit or eliminate risks to INL Bogota.

M15. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance will be evaluation as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform solicitation requirements based on previous and current contract efforts.

For the purposes of evaluating past performance, the Government will consider the collective past performance of the proposed contract team. For evaluation purposes, the proposed contract team includes the Prime Offeror, joint venture partner, and major subcontractor(s). For the purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that will likely perform more than 15% of the required effort.

(a) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Some Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

(b) Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent (within the last 3 years) and relevant record of performance in delivering services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. In conducting Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

i. Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, past performance must not be older than three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past Performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. In determining relevancy for past performance references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, to be performed under this contract by offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose performance is being reviewed and evaluated.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

The Government will use the following definitions when assessing the relevancy of past performance refences. With respect to the relevancy, the Government will consider more relevant Past Performance to be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance evaluation than Past Performance of lesser relevance.

iii. Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the quality of the work performed will be assessed. For each reference being evaluated, the Government will consider the areas identified in Attachment 5 (PPQ). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system.

For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

(c) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

M.16. FACTOR 3: PRICE

The principal basis for evaluating price as a factor for award under this solicitation will be an evaluation of the reasonableness of the offeror’s respective overall proposed prices submitted in Pricing Table 6. The Government will conduct an evaluation to determine ultimately that the final agreed-to overall price from Pricing Table 6 is fair and reasonable. The Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR 15.404 to conduct the evaluation.

The Government will use the RFP-specified estimate FTE employees per year, hours, and months in Pricing Table 6 for evaluation purposes only. The Government does not commit to order or payment of these quantities and dollar amounts, respectively.

However, the applicable pricing information proposed in Pricing Table 6 and the other pricing tables (i.e. fixed fully loaded hourly labor rates and firm fixed price per month for PMO) will be used as the awarded pricing information if the award is made without discussions, or will be used as the basis of negotiation if award is made with discussions.

The Government will evaluate offers for contract award purposes by adding, from Pricing Table 6, the total proposed price for all option periods to the total proposed price for the base period. Evaluation of options will be obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).