RFP_277-17-0499_Revised_SECTION_M.docx

RFP No. 277-17-0499 Revised Section M

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. GENERAL

a. Selection of an offeror for contract award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against the following four (4) factors: Technical, Section 508 Compliance, Past Performance, and Cost. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. In any case, the Government reserves the right to make an award to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

b. All proposals will be reviewed in accordance with the governing regulations and SAMHSA policies and procedures. Each proposal will be evaluated on the likelihood of meeting the Government's requirements. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated technical and administrative capabilities in relation to the needs of the project, and the reasonableness and realism of proposed costs in relation to the work to be performed. The evaluation factors in Section M.2., below, are those that will be applied in the evaluation of each technical proposal, including the assigned weight given to each factor. The assigned weight for each factor is indicated. If there is no stipulation as to the specific weights for a given sub-factor under a criterion, then each sub-factor is considered equally weighted.

c. Evaluation of past performance may often be quite subjective based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will include a determination of the offeror’s commitment to customer satisfaction and will include conclusions of informed judgment. However, the basis for conclusions of judgment will be documented.

d. If an offeror, or the proposed employees for the offeror, do not have a past performance history relating to this solicitation, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this factor.

M.2. NON-COST EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factor 1: Technical

The Technical Evaluation Factor, for a total of 100 points, will be evaluated by an ad hoc technical review committee, who will also recommend technical acceptability or unacceptability of the proposal.

The following criteria are those that will be applied in the evaluation of the technical proposals. The assigned weight for each factor is shown below.

1. Understanding the Problem and Technical Objectives 30 points The proposal will be evaluated on its response to the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) as it relates to consistency of goals, objectives, purposes, and compliance with program requirements listed below.

a. The Offeror demonstrates its understanding of the scope and complexity of the public health and knowledge dissemination challenges posed by substance use prevention as viewed primarily from the perspective of the general public, media, health professionals, and policymakers. (10 pts)

b. The proposal reflects an understanding and in depth experience in product development, testing and the application of the latest research on substance use prevention and health communication issues into contract operations. (10 pts)

c. The Offeror demonstrates its ability to conduct an impact and outcome evaluation that meets the objectives and directives set forth in Section 2(d) of the Sober Truth on Preventing (STOP) Underage Drinking Act, Public Law 109-422, STOP Act. (10 pts)

2. Technical Approach 40 points

a. The Offeror shall go beyond describing the “how-to’s” of carrying out each of the contract tasks. The Offeror shall propose creative, innovative, and unified approaches in project implementation, staffing, and resource management. The Offeror demonstrates their understanding of the information needs and communication preferences of consumers, families, the general public, policymakers, and providers involved in the substance use prevention field. The proposal will be evaluated in this area on the completeness, reasonableness, clarity, and feasibility of the approach to satisfy the objectives and requirements as outlined in the SOW. (5pts)

b. The content of the technical approach should clearly address how the Offeror plans to:

1. Perform in-depth analyses of primary and secondary data on knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors linked to the implementation of national public health media campaigns to prevent underage drinking that increase knowledge and skills for parents and caregivers; (9 pts)

2. Provide communications support for national outreach and public education initiatives across a variety of behavioral health topics with all the components described in the SOW; (5pts)

3. Address information needs and communication preferences of consumers, families, the general public, policymakers, and providers involved in the substance use prevention field; (3pts)

4. Arrange and implement logistical and consultant support for meetings required under the contract; (2pts) and

5. Provide the analytic and graphics support needed. (2 pts)

c. The proposal should demonstrate in-depth knowledge of the federal and SAMHSA program initiatives and Federal Government’s GPRA requirements. (2 pts)

d. The proposal should demonstrate excellent skills in producing media/video content for Public Service Announcements, writing and editing of publications, and generating clear, concise reports that can be disseminated to the public, policymakers, and providers involved in the prevention field. (10 pts)

e. The proposal should demonstrate the Offeror’s capacity to contract with subject matter consultants and community intermediaries to perform certain expected deliverables. (2 pts)

3. Management/Utilization of Personnel and Resources/Facilities 15 points

a. The proposal must demonstrate that the Offeror will provide adequate facilities, necessary office equipment, computer hardware, computer software, and any other equipment necessary to perform the project. (2 pts)

b. The proposal should emphasize the offeror’s ability to:

a. schedule, monitor, and track tasks; (2 pts)

b. plan for logistics and management of meetings; (2 pts)

c. track and manage consultant agreements; (3 pts)

d. and provide close coordination with the SAMHSA COR. (2 pts)

c. Management plans should be sound, feasible and show clear lines of authority and responsibility with quality control procedures. (2 pts)

d. The proposal should include an organization chart identifying the Offeror’s organization as well as any subcontractors and/or partner organizations. (2 pts)

4. Corporate and Key Personnel 15 points

a. Proposals must demonstrate that proposed personnel possess the necessary qualifications, expertise, and experience to plan and implement all tasks within the SOW. Proposed personnel must be culturally competent and knowledgeable in health communications as it relates to substance use prevention. In addition, they must have knowledge and experience in mental health and substance use. All personnel, including those not currently on staff, must be identified, with resumes submitted for all proposed personnel. Letters of commitment are required for all proposed subcontractors, consultants, and staff whose hiring is contingent upon award of the contract. (6 pts)

b. The proposal should show a proven corporate track record in executing the task of the SOW. The proposal should also demonstrate experience collaborating on substance use prevention efforts with other relevant agencies and organizations nationwide. This includes experience and capability in delivering high quality information/education products and web services for the intended audience. (5 pts)

c. The proposed person hours should be provided in a staff-loading chart presented by year, hour, and task. (2 pts)

d. The proposal should provide a credible discussion on the transition of this effort from the current contractor, if the offeror is successful. (2 pts)

Note: Resumes must be submitted for all key staff. Letters of commitment and resumes are required for all proposed subcontractors, consultants, and staff whose hiring is contingent upon award of the contract.

Technical Criteria Total 100 Points

b. Evaluation Factor 2: Section 508 Compliance (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The “Section 508 Compliance” evaluation factor will be evaluated after establishment of the competitive range. A rating of “Unacceptable” for this factor will result in the proposal being removed from further award consideration.

Proposals will be evaluated based upon the offeror’s compliance with and demonstrated commitment to complying with the provisions of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires agencies and their contractors to buy Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) that is accessible to people with disabilities. This evaluation will be based on information provided by the offeror as required in Section L.2.c.10.

Section 508 Compliance shall be evaluated and rated as either acceptable or unacceptable. Offerors rated as unacceptable for this category will be eliminated and no longer be considered for award.

c. Evaluation Factor 3: Past Performance Information (Favorable/Unfavorable/Neutral)

The “Past Performance Information” evaluation factor will be evaluated after establishment of the competitive range. SAMHSA will not evaluate “Past Performance Information” on any offeror whose proposal was determined to be technically unacceptable.

In evaluating past performance, the Government will assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet contract requirements based on a demonstrated record of performance. Each offeror will be evaluated on its performance under existing and prior contract for similar products or services. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size and complexity of the acquisition under consideration. This evaluation will be based on information provided by the offeror as required in Section L.2.c.11, information obtained from references provided by the offeror, as well as informed obtained by other sources known to the Government. For the purposes of this evaluation factor, the term “offeror” is inclusive of the prime, predecessor companies, key personnel, and subcontractors.

The Government will consider the relevancy (similar scope of effort and complexity as the work required by the solicitation) and quality of the offeror’s performance to arrive at a favorable, unfavorable, or neutral past performance rating. In determining successful contract performance, the Government will review the ratings provided by references in the areas of quality, cost control, timeliness of performance, business relations, and customer service.

M.3. COST EVALUATION FACTOR

Proposals will be evaluated for the realism of the proposed cost. The Government may adjust the proposed cost for evaluation purposes based upon an assessment of the proposal’s overall cost realism. Cost realism analyzes whether the costs in an offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal.

M.4. FAR 52.217-5, EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL l990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interest, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

M.5. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the greatest overall value to the Government, from both a non-cost and cost standpoint. The non-cost factors are significantly more important than the cost factor. However, if two or more proposals are determined to be approximately equal in the non-cost factors, cost may become the determining factor in selecting the awardee. In any case, the Government reserves the right to make an award to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.