2.2.1g Attachment 7 - Technical Evaluation Plan Security Guards II DR-4339-VI.pdf

Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)

Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO)

Level II Armed Security Guards

DR-4340-VI

Technical Evaluation Plan (TEP)

April 9, 2025

Attachment 07

1. Description of Requirement: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires armed guards to provide security services at disaster related sites and facilities within the United States Virgin Islands (USVI). FEMA uses contract armed security guard services to safeguard federal employees, visitors and property at both temporary (when needed) and fixed facilities during disaster and emergency declarations. These services will support DR-4340-VI.

2. Safeguards: It is critical that all procurement sensitive documents and information are not shared or released outside of the evaluation team. All evaluation team members are required to always safeguard the technical proposals and all related evaluation documentation. No information contained in the proposals, nor information concerning the number or identity of the offerors, may be made available to anyone outside of the evaluation team without approval of the Contracting Officer (CO). Anyone trying to obtain procurement information concerning the proposals must be reported to the evaluation team Chairperson. Team members will inform the Chairperson immediately of any suspected improprieties.

The Chairperson will, in-turn, notify the CO.

3. Conflicts of interest are any situations, which would affect one’s objectivity in evaluating proposals.

Conflicts may be financial, personal, or professional. If the appearance of a conflict of interest exists between an evaluator and one or more of the Offerors, he/she may be dismissed from the evaluation team.

Furthermore, if, at any time after commencement of the evaluation process, an evaluator suspects that they may have a conflict of interest or that the appearance of a conflict of interest exists, the CO must be informed.

4. Description of the Evaluation Team:

Members:

• Technical Evaluation Team (TET) Chairperson:

o John A. Meyers, Sr, Primary COR

• Technical Evaluation Voting Members:

o John A. Meyers, Sr. - Lead o Rosaldo Horsford, Sr. - Evaluator

• Business Evaluation Team (BET):

o Brenda L. Cruz Rodríguez, Contracting Officer

• Source Selection Official (SSO):

o Brenda L. Cruz Rodriguez, Contracting Officer

Duties and Responsibilities of Chair, TET:

• Directs performance of the overall evaluation process in accordance with the evaluation plan procedures and Request for Proposal (RFP).

• Determines the need for Technical Advisors.

• Ensures that evaluators understand the criteria for the evaluation of proposals and maintain a consistent approach.

• Chairs the consensus meeting, reviews Board Members’ findings, and resolves inconsistencies.

• Prepares a minority/dissenting report, if needed.

• Reports progress, participates in preparation of the Technical Evaluation Report, and briefs the TET’s results to the CO.

• Participates in the explanation of award to the unsuccessful offerors, as requested by the CO.

• Maintains proper security for quotations, evaluations, and report.

Duties and Responsibilities of Voting Members:

• Using the established Evaluation Factors, perform a consistent and impartial evaluation of proposals, in a consensus manner, in accordance with the approved technical evaluation procedures and the RFP.

• The TET may be asked to review the labor mix of each proposal to assess whether it is reasonable and appropriate after the technical evaluation is completed.

• Individual evaluators will first document their findings on their worksheets. After individual evaluations are completed for each proposal, the team will perform a consensus rating for each proposal. The findings will be documented in the Evaluation Report. The individual worksheets must be returned to the Contracting Officer at the conclusion of the Consensus Rating.

• Prepare and sign the Consensus Technical Evaluation Report which must address all evaluation factors and sub-factors.

Duties and Responsibilities of BET:

• Analyze the pricing data provided by the Offerors to determine the reasonableness of proposed prices, look for arithmetic errors, and identify any discounts.

• Compares the labor category price proposed to the labor category prices of other offerors.

• After the technical evaluation is completed and given to the CO, the CO will provide the price proposal to the TET so that they may review each price quotation to determine if the labor mix is reasonable and proper.

• Conducts the debriefing along with the TET chair. If an unsuccessful offeror requests information on an award that was based on factors other than price alone, a brief explanation of the basis for the award decision shall be provided.

Duties and Responsibilities of the SSO:

• Ensure that the entire selection process is conducted properly and efficiently.

• Select the apparent successful Offeror(s) after an in-depth review and analysis of recommendations and other information from the evaluation team.

• Authorize award of the contract subject to all applicable requirements of law and regulations, including business clearance procedures, etc.

• Ensures that the Technical Evaluation Report is complete.

• Determine the consensus rating for each non-price factor.

5. Evaluation Factors and Ratings:

As stated above, the Individual Evaluator Worksheets will be used by evaluation team members when performing their individual evaluation of the proposals. The adjectival ratings to be used for the evaluation are provided below. Proposals will be evaluated and rated but not ranked using the non-price factors listed below. All non-price factors, when combined, are slightly more important than price.

6. Overall Evaluation Methodology:

• Request for Proposal, Proposals, Individual Evaluation Worksheets.

• Perform an initial compliance check of the proposals to determine conformance of the proposal to instructions in the RFP. Additionally, review all proposals to determine if they satisfy the minimum requirements of the RFP. Proposals found to be inadequate or in gross non-conformance with the RFP instructions (further evaluation is impossible) will be identified to the CO. The CO will prepare written documentation of a recommendation of unacceptability.

• The BET and the TET will complete the Best Value Summary, which will serve as the Best Value determination.

Key Process Steps

• For each proposal, the evaluators individually will identify strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, omissions, and areas requiring clarification or discussions.

• Evaluators will perform initial adjectival rating and present and discuss their findings in a consensus meeting to determine the consensus rating for each Offeror.

• Past performance will be verified by the TET to include query of the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). If required, clarifications, or fact-finding, or discussions shall be conducted by the CO.

• Award Decision

• If requested, a written Explanation of Award to unsuccessful Offeror(s).

Technical Evaluation Criterion

Factor 1 – Management Approach

Offeror’s staffing plan shall be evaluated on it demonstrate ability to provide staffing to 43,800 yearly hours PSOs to cover all possible posts. The staffing plan shall fully describe the offeror's proposed solution to achieve requirements of the SOW and address the offeror's technical approach and methodology. The work plan shall be specific, detailed and complete enough to demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements in the SOW.

Offeror’s contingency plan shall be evaluated on how well it demonstrates ability to establish and execute emergency plan.

Offeror’s shall be evaluated on it demonstrates adherence to local and federal laws.

Factor 2 –Past Performance

The Government shall evaluate the submitted past performance information for each offeror as well as information obtained from any other available sources. The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s record of how well the offeror performed on relevant and recent work for government and private sector clients. The Government will not restrict its consideration to the information provided in the proposal and may consider any other available information including any records in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

Factor 3 - Price Evaluation

Sufficient competition is expected for this procurement; therefore, price analysis will be utilized to determine a fair and reasonable price. Price will be evaluated, but not rated. Price will be evaluated to determine whether it is fair and reasonable and if it reflects the offeror’s understanding of the work. This factor will be evaluated utilizing price analysis techniques identifies in FAR 15.404‐1. The analysis will include price reasonableness.

Offeror are cautioned unreasonably high or low prices may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable and rejected.

a. Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

b. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether there are negotiations or not after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers or quotations for award purposes by adding the total price for all options the total price for the basic requirement to determine the total evaluated price. This includes options under FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, which applies to this solicitation. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).”

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. To account for the option periods possible under 52.217-8 (maximum of six months), Options to Extend Services, the Government will evaluate the option to extend services by adding six months of the offeror’s final option period price to the offeror’s total price. This amount will be the total evaluated price. The Government may choose to exercise the Option to Extend Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods). Prices for the base and option periods, including the 6-month option available under FAR 52.217-8, will be evaluated to ensure that they are fair and reasonable for performance of the requirements established in the solicitation and as proposed in the technical submission. The price for the effort associated with FAR 52.217-8 will not be included in the total awarded value at contract award. If, at the end of the contract’s/order’s period of performance (the end of the base period or any option period) and within the time-period established in the clause, the Government chooses to exercise this option, the pricing will be pursuant to the rates specified in the contract for the preceding performance period.”

Ranking of Factors and Basis for Award

A technical analysis will be conducted on each quotation independently to determine technical merit and rating. A comparative analysis will be conducted by the Technical Evaluation Team to determine the quotation offering the Government the best value (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.) to meet the Government’s needs in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15. Proposals will be evaluated and rated but not ranked using the non-price factors listed above. A rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the below technical factors will render the entire proposal technically unacceptable and, therefore, not eligible for award. All non-price factors, when combined, are slightly more important than price. Award will be made to the responsive, responsible contractor who provides the best-valued solution to the Government. Should the offeror be determined to be the best value, the Government reserves the right to determine the offeror who would be awarded based upon the best interest of the Government.

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR WORKSHEET

Offeror:

Evaluator:

FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Criterion:

Each offeror’s staffing plan shall be evaluated on it demonstrate ability to provide staffing to 43,800 yearly hours PSOs to cover all possible posts. The staffing plan shall fully describe the offeror's proposed solution to achieve requirements of the SOW and address the offeror's technical approach and methodology. The staffing plan shall be specific, detailed and complete enough to demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements in the SOW.

Offeror’s contingency plan shall be evaluated on how well it demonstrates ability to establish and execute emergency plan.

Offeror’s shall be evaluated on it demonstrates adherence to local and federal laws.

Adjectival Rating:

Supporting Narrative

Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Deficiencies:

Items for Discussions or Clarifications:

Rating Definitions

Definition and Adjectival Rating Factor 1 - 3:

The Technical Approach Factor will be evaluated against the stated criteria using the following descriptive adjectival ratings and definitions:

• Strength: An element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way.

• Weakness: A flaw in a proposal that increases the chance of unsuccessful performance.

• Omission: An element of the government’s requirement that has been overlooked and excluded from the proposal

• Deficiencies: A serious flaw or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to a potential unacceptable level.

Rating System for Technical Factor 1 -3 Rating Definition Superior Proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards.

Proposal strengths will significantly benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Good Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements and an approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Satisfactory Proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable solution with few, or no strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Marginal Proposal demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirements and an approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. Significant weaknesses or deficiency exists that may be correctable without major proposal revisions. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory Proposal fails to meet requirements, and one or more deficiencies exist for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal. A contract cannot be awarded with this proposal.

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR WORKSHEET

Evaluator:

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Criterion:

The Government shall evaluate the submitted past performance information for each offeror as well as information obtained from any other available sources. The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s record of how well the offeror performed on relevant and recent work for government and private sector clients. The Government will not restrict its consideration to the information provided in the proposal and may consider any other available information including any records in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

Rating System for Past Performance Evaluation Factors Rating Definition Neutral The Offeror has no record of past performance. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the offeror, key personnel, or subcontractors. This is neither a negative nor positive assessment.

Superior Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is highly likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is not likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Definitions

Strength: An element of the proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluators are required to explain what the impact is of the identified weakness.

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

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement, as established in the RFP, and renders the proposal unacceptable, e.g., omits data, making it impossible to assess compliance with the evaluation factors, or contains ambiguities that must be clarified before an assessment of compliance can be made.

Omission: Information requested in the RFP that was not provided in the quotation. An omission is not necessarily a deficiency if it is not material in nature and the intent of the Offeror can be readily determined.

Risk: A risk is an aspect of a proposed approach that has the potential to negatively impact successfully meeting the Government’s needs.

Clarification: Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors for the purpose of enhancing the Government’s understanding of proposals, without entering discussions, or requesting a revision to the proposal.

CONSENSUS RATING SUMMARY

Offeror: Factor 1 Factor 2

CONSENSUS RATING

FACTOR 1 – WORK PLAN

Criterion:

Each offeror’s work plan shall be evaluated on its demonstrated ability to provide staffing throughout the Commonwealth (all municipalities) of United States Virgin Islands necessary accomplish the tasks outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). The work plan shall fully describe the offeror’s proposed solution to achieve requirements of the SOW and address the offeror’s technical approach and methodology. The work plan shall be specific, detailed and complete enough to demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements in the SOW. The resume of the proposed Key Personnel (Project Manager) shall be evaluated based on the depth and breadth of the person’s experience in managing requirements like the immediate requirement.

FACTOR 2 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Criterion:

Each offeror’s Project Management Plan shall be evaluated on its demonstrated project management and oversight capability. Significant emphasis shall be placed on the offeror’s proposed plan to manage its workforce.

FACTOR 3 – QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

Criterion:

Each offeror’s Quality Control Plan shall be evaluated on how well it demonstrates the offeror’s ability to establish and execute a quality control plan, whereby the contractor manages and monitors the process and takes the appropriate corrective action to correct performance to meet program objectives.

FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Criterion:

The Government shall evaluate the submitted past performance information for each offeror as well as information obtained from any other available sources. The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s record of how well the offeror performed on relevant and recent work for government and private sector clients. The Government will not restrict its consideration to the information provided in the proposal and may consider any other available information including any records in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).