Final_PSPB_Evaluation_Criteria_for_Security_officers(_2019)_927.docx

Evaluation Criteria Place of Performance: 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002 and 6000 Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD

CONTRACTOR MUST BE ABLE TO COMMUTE DAILY TO THE ATF HQ OFFICE IN WASHINGTON, DC AND THE ATF NATIONAL LABORATORY IN BELTSVILLE, MD.

This contract will be awarded under a Firm Fixed Price (FFP), set-aside for 8A small businesses that presents the overall best value to the Government, considering the technical merit of the contractor's proposal and its evaluated price. ATF will use the factors below to evaluate the proposal. The proposal price will be analyzed to determine if the prices proposed for the base period and option periods are reasonable, for the type of work proposed.

As the technical proposals approach equality, price will become more important in making the award determination. In the event that two or more proposals are determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e. are technically equivalent), the Government will make an award to the lowest price contractor.

ATF intends to issue one contract to cover both locations. Proposals will be accepted beginning from the date of this solicitation. All responses will be evaluated and an award will be made to the most highly rated company. ATF's objective is to acquire a professional armed security officer force for both locations where delegation of authority rests with the Physical Security Programs Branch (PSPB) of ATF.

Evaluation Methodology

A single award will be made to the responsible Offeror submitting an overall proposal (an overall rating will be assigned) that is determined most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price criteria considered. In awarding the contract ATF will select a contractor who presents the overall best value to the Government, considering the technical merit of the contractor's proposal and its evaluated price. ATF will use the factors below to evaluate the proposal. The proposal price will be analyzed to determine if the prices proposed for the base period and option periods are reasonable, for the type of work proposed.

As the technical proposals approach equality, price will become more important in making the award determination. In the event that two or more proposals are determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e. are technically equivalent), the Government will make an award to the lowest price contractor.

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal meets the Government’s requirements and whose technical proposal and price represent the best value to the Government.

A proposal complying with solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for award if a higher-priced offer is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government. Likewise, the Government may award the resulting contract to an offeror who does not offer the highest technically rated proposal.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth by the RFP. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (although the right to conduct discussions, if necessary is reserved) in accordance with FAR Part 15. Therefore, the initial proposal submitted should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

For the purposes of evaluating proposals and selecting the awardee, the combined relative merit of the following evaluation factors; Technical Experience and Past Performance, shall be considered. The proposed price shall be considered in the overall evaluation of proposals. The factors listed below will be evaluated to determine the selection of a contractor who offers the best value to the Government. The following technical evaluation factors are in descending order of relative importance:

FACTOR 1 - Technical Experience (to include answering the 14 questions)(Technical Factor) FACTOR 2 - Past Performance (Technical Factor) FACTOR 3 – Price (Non-Technical Factor) The Two (2) Technical Factors when combined are more important than the one (1) Non-Technical Factor.

All assumptions will be evaluated as part of the individual factor to which they apply. The Government reserves the right to reject a proposal that includes an assumption that may adversely affect satisfying the Government’s requirements.

FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL APPROACH /EXPERIENCE

CRITERIA

Technical Approach/Experience (SEND TECHICAL PROPOSAL AND PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY TO hqlabproposals@atf.gov ONLY)

The Government will evaluate the Technical/Managerial Approach using the below table along with the question below:

For the following fourteen (14) questions, respond in no more than 3-5 sentences for each question. Failure to respond to any of the listed questions will result in an automatic failed evaluation and will be eliminated from further consideration. In addition to these questions, the Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the criteria set forth in the Statement of Work as minimum requirements.

1. What experience does your company have in providing armed security protection in a federal facility?

2. What experience does your company have in training or managing the training of your armed security officers on the 9MM semi-automatic handgun, M-4 automatic rifle?

3. What experience does your company have in training or managing the training of your armed security officers on the use of Tasers?

4. What experience does your company have in training or managing the training of your armed security officers to respond to an active shooter event?

5. What experience does you company have in training or managing the training of your armed security officers in implementing proper communication protocol utilizing hand held radios?

6. What experience does your company have in training or managing the training of armed security officers in visitor-screening process utilizing X-ray and magnetometer equipment?

7. What experience does your company have in implementing a physical training standard program for your armed security officers?

8. What experience does your company have in maintaining records and security logs of a federal facility?

9. What experience does your company have in training or managing the training of armed security officers on the use and monitoring of Closed Circuit Video (CCV) cameras?

10. What experience does your company have in implementing positive customer service to the members of the facility you protect?

11. Describe your process for proper transition into the facility that allows for continuity of operations in the protection services.

12. Describe your corporate experience involving a federal contract.

13. Describe your process and ability to maintain the training of the armed security officers on the facility your company is protecting.

14. What experience does your company have in implementing and maintaining a Quality Control Plan (QCP)?

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

1. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which their performance demonstrates the likelihood of successful performance in providing requirements similar in size, scope and complexity of this solicitation. The Government may choose to evaluate publicly available reports, and/or data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government may use present and/or past performance data obtained from a variety of sources, not just those contracts identified by offeror. The information gathered for past performance may also be used in the responsibility determination.

Attachment C (Past and Present Performance Survey) MUST be submitted for all three (3) references directly by the company that completes it, to the Contracting Officer Simone Rittenhouse at Simone.Rittenhouse@atf.gov and Jeannine Beavers at Jeannine.Beavers@atf.gov. Recent is defined as within the last three (3) years. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity, magnitude, and type of the work described in the Statement of Work (SOW).

The Offeror shall provide references for three (3) contracts/Orders with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance of similar scope, size and complexity of services identified.

FACTOR 3 - PRICE (Non-Technical Factor) (SEND PRICING PROPOSALS TO SIMONE RITTENHOUSE AND JEANNINE BEAVERS EMAIL ONLY)

Price reasonableness will be assessed Contracting Officer and reviewed by the COR to determine if each line item is fair and reasonable. Price reasonableness will be determine by reviewing the Service Contract Act for the Washington, DC area, Collective Bargaining Agreement, and a comparison with the Government’s (current contract).

ALL pricing MUST be broken out to show costs.