2.2.1 Attachment 3 - Evaluation Factors - FINAL.pdf

FEMA Public Assistance (PA) Hermit’s Peak Arbitration Support Evaluation Factors and Criteria

ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The Government intends to award a single award IDIQ to the responsible offeror whose proposals represent the best value to the Government. Using the best-value tradeoff process, the Government will evaluate each proposal in accordance with the three non-price evaluation factors and price to procure a single award contract under this acquisition.

BASIS FOR AWARD, EVALUATION FACTORS, ORDER OF IMPORTANCE, AND

OVERALL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Basis for Award - Best Value / Trade Off

In accordance with FAR 15.101-1 Trade off, the award will be made based on proposals that are determined to provide the best value as a whole to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors: Corporate Experience, Key Personnel, Management Plan, Past Performance and Price. This approach does not require FEMA to award to the Offeror(s) submitting the lowest priced proposal or to the Offeror(s) submitting the highest technically rated proposals. It is the Government’s objective to award a single-award IDIQ.

FEMA reserves the right to award a contract to the Offeror who proposes the best value.

The Government will award a single-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation will be the best value to the Government, price and other non-price factors considered. In making a best value determination for award, the Government is more concerned with obtaining a superior solution rather than making an award to the Offeror with the lowest evaluated price. The Government will make a best value technical/price tradeoff award determination. The Government reserves the right to make an award to a higher priced Offeror for a superior solution as set forth in the non-priced factors. As such, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with highest technical rating. As the merits of the non-priced factors become closer or even, price will become more important in the award determination. Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Evaluation Factors

This evaluation shall evaluate each Offeror by the proposal received in response to the solicitation. The evaluation will be conducted using the following factors:

Factor One (1): Corporate Experience (Confidence Rating) Factor Two (2): Key Personnel (Confidence Rating) Factor Three (3): Program Management Plan (Confidence Rating)

Factors and Criteria

Factor Four (4): Past Performance (Confidence Rating) Factor Five (5): Price

Order of Importance Factor 1 (Corporate Experience) is the most important factor, followed by Factor 2 (Key Personnel), which is more important than Factor 3 (Management Plan). Factor 3 (Management Plan) is more important than Factor 4 (Past Performance). All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 (Price). Offerors are ineligible for award if they are rated “Low Confidence” on any of the non-price related factors.

Overall Proposal Requirements

Offerors are required to comply with the following instructions for proposal preparation and submission. Any Offeror who fails to follow all instructions may risk: (1) a lower confidence rating being assigned to their proposal; (2) creating proposal deficiencies, or (3) their proposal being rejected in its entirety.

In addition, clarity and completeness of all material submitted or presented is required.

Submitted material and presentations shall be practical, tailored to the solicitation, and be clear and concise. The use of general or vague statements such as “standard procedures will be used” and “will comply with specification,” are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the Offeror’s lack of understanding. Incomplete submissions may be rejected.

All proposal submissions must include the solicitation number and the legal name and Unique Entity Identification (UEID) of the Offeror. All submissions shall only be submitted via email, and attachments shall not exceed 10MB or they will be rejected by the FEMA server. Files may be submitted in parts to stay within the 10MB limit.

Overall Proposal Requirements The offeror’s proposal must be submitted in five parts (separate PDF and Excel Files): Factor 1 – Corporate Experience; Factor 2 – Key Personnel; Factor 3 – Management Plan; Factor 4 - Past Performance and Factor 5 – Cost/Price Proposal. Each of the parts shall be separate and complete so the evaluation of each may be accomplished independently.

RATING DEFINITIONS, PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, AND EVALUATION

METHODOLOGY

Rating definitions for Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3 and Factor 4 are confidence ratings.

The Government will assess the level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform all requirements in accordance with the PWS (Attachment 1) based on the table below.

Rating Description

High Confidence

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence

The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Factor One (1): Corporate Experience Submittal Requirements

Offerors are required to submit three (3) Government and/or commercial contracts that have been performed as the prime and awarded during the past seven (7) years from the issue date of this request for proposal. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure the point-of-contact for each reference is available to be reached by phone during the days immediately following the past performance submission.

Corporate experience must include providing Arbitration services. Experience in other forms of alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, will not be considered relevant. Evaluation will focus on prime contracts that demonstrate the provision of Arbitration services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the subject requirement as outlined in the PWS. Relevant details for consideration include:

• Size: Contracts with a minimum actual incurred costs value of $1 million (not the ceiling value).

• Scope and Complexity: Work that aligns with the tasks identified in the PWS.

Corporate Experience submission must not exceed six (6) 8.5 inch by 11- inch pages (page limit requirement does not include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Front and back cover pages will not be counted in the page limit, nor will these pages be evaluated, i.e. any information listed on these pages will be ignored. All pages in excess of the 6-page limit criteria detailed above will not be considered. All other material such as brochures or samples of work, attachments, or extra pages will not be considered.

All proposal submittals shall use a type pitch that is no smaller than a standard 12-point font type, with the exception of charts, graphs, or tables, which shall use a pitch not smaller than 11-point font.

Factor Two (2): Key Personnel Submittal Requirements

The Government will evaluate Factor 2: Key Personnel based on the requirements and qualifications for the Program Manager (PM) and Arbitrator as stated in Sections 14 and 15 of the PWS (Attachment 1). As part of its proposal, the Offeror shall only propose the minimum number of arbitrators, 4, that the Government requests, per PWS 11.1.3.

The Key Personnel resume submissions must not exceed forty-two (42) (two (2) pages per resume) 8.5 inch by 11- inch pages. Front and back cover pages will not be counted in the page limit, nor will these pages be evaluated, i.e. any information listed on these pages will be ignored. All pages in excess of the 42-page limit criteria detailed above will not be considered.

All other material such as brochures or samples of work, attachments, or extra pages will not be considered.

All proposal submittals shall use a type pitch that is no smaller than a standard 12-point font type, with the exception of charts, graphs, or tables, which shall use a pitch not smaller than 11-point font.

Factor Three (3): Management Plan Submittal Requirements

As part of its proposal, the Offeror shall also develop and submit a Management Plan that outlines the ability of the contractor to meet the requirements of this contract. The Management Plan shall outline the contractor’s approach to managing and executing the required services as listed in the PWS and shall demonstrate its understanding of the PWS and all applicable state and local regulations that are pertinent to this contract. In addition, the Management Plan shall also include:

A. Organizational Structure and Roles and Responsibilities B. Technical Approach that addresses:

i. Offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements and any challenges;

ii. Offeror’s strategy to maximize use of local arbitrators;

iii. Offeror’s strategy to maintain roster of available arbitrators, even during extended period of inactivity;

iv. Offeror’s strategy and ability to expand the roster to the maximum of 20 arbitrators within the specified timeframe;

v. Project Schedule and offeror’s ability to meet all established timelines for deliverables;

vi. Innovative Approaches – highlight any innovative solutions or methods that could enhance performance or efficiency.

C. Cost Control – Discuss any innovative solutions the offeror proposes that will save Government money. These could include approaches like minimizing expenses to the Government associated with maintaining a roster, especially during extended periods of inactivity, or offering savings on hourly rate reimbursements for travel and training time.

D. Quality Control Plan that illustrates the methods the offeror will use to review its performance to ensure it conforms to the performance requirements;

Offerors are required to submit a comprehensive and complete Management Plan proposal that demonstrates their understanding and ability to perform the tasks described in the subject Performance Work Statement and applicable supplemental documents. The Offeror’s management plan shall provide a rationale that fully supports proposed costs.

Offerors must be responsive to all the requirements of this notice and provide sufficient information to allow evaluation of the Management Approach proposal per the evaluation criteria. It must be succinct, well written and presented in a clear straightforward manner. The proposal shall be prepared using the following guidance:

The Management Plan proposal submission must not exceed ten (10) 8.5 inch by 11- inch pages.

Front and back cover pages will not be counted in the page limit, nor will these pages be evaluated, i.e. any information listed on these pages will be ignored. All pages in excess of the 10-page limit criteria detailed above will not be considered. All other material such as brochures or samples of work, attachments, or extra pages will not be considered.

All proposal submittals shall use a type pitch that is no smaller than a standard 12-point font type, with the exception of charts, graphs, or tables, which shall use a pitch not smaller than 11-point font.

The Management Plan is expected to contain written and visual material. It must be succinct, well written and presented in a clear straightforward manner.

Factor Four (4): Past Performance Submittal Requirements

This volume shall contain past performance information for services directly related and relevant to the services to be performed under the PWS. Awarded contracts must be relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar in scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity to the efforts stated in the PWS. This shall be organized into the following sections:

Section 1: Past Performance Information:

• Project title/description

• Role (Prime/Subcontractor)

• Contract number

• Contract Ceiling, Actual Incurred Costs & Contract Type

• Period of performance

• Agency or company for which the work was performed

• Summary of the work products/services

• Name/contact information of client point of contact

Section 2: Past Performance Summary

• Offeror shall provide a concise narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1:

Past Performance Information, describing the work products/services, objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of the PWS for this request for proposal.

• Offeror shall indicate any corrective actions taken for not meeting schedule, etc.

Past Performance submission must not exceed six (6) 8.5 inch by 11- inch pages (page limit requirement does not include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Front and back cover pages will not be counted in the page limit, nor will these pages be evaluated, i.e. any information listed on these pages will be ignored. All pages in excess of the 6-page limit criteria detailed above will not be considered. All other material such as brochures or samples of work, attachments, or extra pages will not be considered.

All proposal submittals shall use a type pitch that is no smaller than a standard 12-point font type, with the exception of charts, graphs, or tables, which shall use a pitch not smaller than 11-point font.

If an offeror cannot provide relevant past performance history, or if such information is unavailable, the offeror will receive a neutral rating for the past performance evaluation factor in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

Factor Five (5): Price Proposal Submittal Requirements (Business Volume)

This volume shall consist of all information required to support proposed prices. Certified cost and pricing data are not currently required; however, the Government reserves the right to request such data prior to award. Information submitted in this volume shall comply with FAR

15.408 Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses.

Offerors must develop their own pricing estimate, which at a minimum must identify monthly rostering of arbitrators (FFP – CLIN 0001), Travel and training time Labor Hour rate (LH – CLIN 0003), and Arbitration hearing costs (FFP – CLIN 0004), and a summary of costs and the Basis of Estimate. The Government will establish a not-to-exceed ceiling for all travel related costs (ODCs).

Factor One (1): Corporate Experience

The technical evaluation will consider the merits of the offeror’s recent and relevant corporate experience. Relevant experience must include providing Arbitration services. Other forms of alternative dispute resolutions (e.g., mediation) will not qualify as relevant work experience.

Evaluation will focus on prime contracts where the offeror has performed relevant Arbitration services similar in size, scope, and complexity to the subject requirement. Relevant experience must also include contracts with a minimum actual incurred costs value of $1 million (not the ceiling value).

This information may include the relative experience of a predecessor company (resulting from mergers and acquisitions), major subcontractor(s) (defined as a subcontract with a total value greater than $750,000 over the life of the contract), or Contractor Team Arrangement/Joint Venture (FAR 9.6), or an offeror's parent or affiliated companies (where the offeror's proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will affect the performance of the offeror).

A. Contracting Agency (Company), address and phone number.

B. Contract number and type of contract for work completed in last 5 years or currently in progress

C. Date of contract, period of performance (duration), and place of performance.

D. Address and phone number of contracting and technical officers.

E. Size of contract (average number full time equivalents provided per year) and dollar value.

F. Brief description of contract work and responsibilities.

G. Indicate relevance of each project to the immediate one. It is not sufficient to merely state that a project is similar in size, scope, and complexity. Rationale shall be provided to the Government that a project is indeed relevant.

Experience that cannot be verified may not be considered. Past and present customers may be randomly selected out of each offeror's proposal to verify experience. The point of contact for each of these customers may then be contacted by the source selection team and asked a standard set of predetermined questions regarding the offeror's experience. Contact with customers will be documented by the Government.

Factor Two (2): Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate Factor 2 – Key Personnel using confidence ratings for the sub-factors. Offerors are ineligible for award if they are rated “Low Confidence.” In accordance with FAR 15.503(a) Pre-award Notices, the Contracting Officer will notify Offerors whose approach is determined irrelevant/unrelated and their proposal has been eliminated from award consideration.

The proposed Key Personnel will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate the appropriate education, technical credibility, training, etc., in relation to the qualifications specified in the PWS. In addition, they will be evaluated on their experience in the relevant knowledge within their respective subject areas of expertise. Special consideration may be given to offerors who propose arbitrators as Key Personnel who are local to New Mexico and have no conflicts of interest as specified in the Performance Work Statement.

Factor Three (3): Management Plan

The Government will evaluate Factor 3 – Management Plan using confidence ratings for the sub-factors. Offerors are ineligible for award if they are rated “Low Confidence.” In accordance with FAR 15.503(a) Pre-award Notices, the Contracting Officer will notify Offerors whose approach is determined irrelevant/unrelated and their proposal has been eliminated from award consideration.

The technical evaluation will assess the merits of the Offeror’s management plan. The evaluation will assess the Offeror's ability to address all the requirements specified under the Proposal Requirements section and the likelihood of successfully fulfilling the requirements of its proposal and the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Additionally, Offerors will be judged on the clarity and innovativeness of their approach, their proposed efforts in cost and quality control, and their capability to demonstrate to the Government that they can effectively execute the requirements of the PWS. The management plan shall be clear, concise, specific, and efficient.

Factor Four (4): Past Performance

The evaluation will focus on requirements, including contract description, contract objectives, contract type, price, final price, and period of performance. Any significant achievements, problems and resolutions, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

The Government utilizes the CPARS for source selection purposes. The Government will consider past performance information contained in CPARS. The Offeror is responsible for submitting the CPARS report for the three contracts provided in Factor 1: Corporate Experience.

CPARS are excluded from the page limit for Factor 1 – Corporate Experience. In determining the rating for this factor, the Government will place greater value on verified past performance which is more relevant to the requirements of the contract PWS. If there is no recent and relevant past performance history, or when performance record is so sparse that no meaningful rating can be reasonably assigned, the proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305 (2) (iv).

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with proposal submittal for past performance.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

If an offeror cannot provide relevant past performance history, or if such information is unavailable, the offeror will receive a neutral rating for the past performance evaluation factor in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

Factor Five (5): Price/ Cost Proposal

Price/Cost proposals will be evaluated but will not be assigned a rating. Adequate price competition is expected for this acquisition. For the purposes of the trade-off process, the total evaluated price will be based on the total price of all CLINS, inclusive of options and (Government provided) other direct cost estimates, but will exclude the proposed firm fixed price of the phase-in. The following factors will be used to evaluate the cost proposal, including price:

(1) Complete. The cost proposal will be evaluated to determine if all business information required by the Request for Proposal (RFP) has been submitted in accordance with, submittal requirements. All price information required in Section L must also be provided and be complete to be considered for contract award, including the (Government provided) other direct cost estimates.

(2) Price reasonableness. Adequate competition will be used to determine price reasonableness.

However, if necessary, the Government may use any or all price analysis techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness. All proposed firm fixed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness.

In accordance with FAR 52.217-5 and FAR 52.217-8, the Government will evaluate a price for the Option to Extend Services in case the Government elects to exercise that option. The method for calculating the price for that option will be to take the price [or rates, etc.] of all CLINS for the previous option period and extend the estimated price for an additional twelve months of performance, in accordance with the maximum time available for extension under the clause.

This will give the total price for the base period of performance and all options contained in the contract. The offeror shall not propose a price for this twelve-month option. The Government will add the calculated price for the twelve-month Option to Extend Services to the contractor’s proposed total price.

The contract will be a hybrid Firm-Fixed-Price/Time & Material/Labor Hour - FFP/T&M/LH type contract. Price proposal will be evaluated separate from technical proposal. In accordance with FAR 17.203(a) the Government will evaluate price reasonableness for this effort for the base period and two (2) one- (1)-year option periods. The total evaluated price will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness. Offerors are cautioned to avoid “Unbalanced Pricing” in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). The Contracting Officer may reject a proposal if the pricing is determined to be unbalanced if it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

On the Spot Consensus

Evaluation factors are supported by written proposals. After individual evaluators review and make notes on the proposals, the evaluation team chair will assemble members to reach consensus on the ratings and findings for each proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in the solicitation. The consensus evaluation report is the record of the evaluation.

QUESTIONS

Prior to submission of proposals, offerors are expected to reach a reasonable understanding of the requirements of this Request for Proposal (RFP) by careful study of the RFP & PWS and by application of qualified knowledge and experience. If such a review establishes the need for correction or clarification of the RFP, such information should be brought to the attention of the

Contracting Officer immediately, so that the matter can be resolved. All clarification questions regarding the solicitation must be submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer. All questions are due to the contracting officer via email only not later than date/time (time zone).

Send questions via email to: Lisa.Thibodeaux@fema.dhs.gov.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS AND DEADLINE

FEMA will accept electronic submissions only. Technical proposal and price proposal must be submitted on separate attachments via email to the Contracting Officer.

The quote must be submitted and received by the Contracting Officer no later than: Date/Time (time zone). Send proposal submissions via email to: Lisa.Thibodeaux@fema.dhs.gov.

ATTACHMENTS

• Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement (PWS)