Attachment_4_Technical_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Attachment 4 Technical Evaluation Criteria

1. Background and Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a contractor to provide professional, technical and scientific experts focused on Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) response and remediation protocols and tools for field responders, policy makers, and analysts focused on CBRN incidents. The contractor shall be able to provide high quality technical support for developing, evaluating and conducting field demonstrations for bench-scale through full-scale field testing/field studies, field trainings and exercises, supporting emergency responses, and provide professional technical writers for the development of high quality scientific and technical documents focused on CBRN response and remediation. The criteria set forth below will be used to evaluate the contractor's technical proposals submitted to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

2. Rating Scheme

The following rating system will be used by the Government to evaluate the technical evaluation criteria and sub-criteria:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses do not outweigh one another or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not outweighed by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unacceptable for purposes of an award

3. Technical Evaluation Criteria/Sub-Criteria

The Government will evaluate timely submitted, responsive quotation submissions on a best value basis in which the technical aspects of the contractor’s submission will be considered significantly more important than price. The evaluation criterion is listed in descending order of importance.

Technical Evaluation Criteria I: Technical Approach

The contractor shall be evaluated on its demonstrated technical experience with requirements of similar size, scope and type with relation to the sub-criterion listed below. For this evaluation criteria, sub-criterion A is significantly more important than sub-criterion B and C when combined, and sub-criteria B is more important than sub-criteria C.

Sub Criteria A – C (Refer to Section IV of the PWS)

A. Sub Criteria A: Scientific and Technical Support experience and Field Demonstration

Support refer to Section IV of the PWS (Task Areas A, B) – The contractor and all subcontractors shall be evaluated on their demonstrated technical experience in emergency response and remedial action, and bench to field scale demonstrations and testing environments relative CBRN contaminants, hazardous waste, and toxic material spills both accidental and deliberate.

B. Sub Criteria B: Field Training and Exercise and Emergency Response Support experience refer to Section IV of the PWS (Task Areas C, D) – The contractor and all subcontractors shall be evaluated on their demonstrated experience in conducting training courses and exercises, both classroom and non-classroom. Specifically, demonstrated experience in the development and delivery of innovative training of a complex technical nature utilizing creative educational techniques.

C. Sub Criteria C: Technical Writing and Editing experience refer to Section IV of the PWS Task Area E – The contractor and all subcontractors shall be evaluated on their demonstrated experience for the development of high quality scientific and technical documents focused on CBRN response and remediation that translates complex, technical information into formats that can be utilized to communicate to a variety of technical and nontechnical audiences.

Evaluation Criteria II: Qualifications and Experience of Professional Personnel

The contractor shall be evaluated on its demonstrated qualifications, experience, and expertise of key and non-key personnel as detailed below. For this evaluation criteria, sub-criterion A, Key Personnel and sub-criterion B, Non-key Personnel are of equally importance. Resumes are required for individuals being proposed for the Key Personnel (Program Manager) and as well as for non-key personnel.

A. Sub Criteria: Key Personnel (Program Manager) - Key personnel shall be evaluated on pertinent knowledge, experience, and technical capability relative to the minimum qualification requirements outlined under the key labor category found in Attachment 2 of this RFQ. This includes experience related to managing/overseeing contracts of a similar size, scope, and type, technical knowledge and experience of the proposed Program Manager as it relates to experience with emergency response, remedial action, and bench to field scale demonstrations and testing environments relative to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) contaminants, hazardous waste, and toxic material spills both accidental and deliberate.

B. Sub Criteria: Non-Key Personnel - Non-Key personnel shall be evaluated on pertinent knowledge, experience, and technical capability relative to performing the tasks outlined under the non-key labor categories found in Attachment 2 of this RFQ. This includes professional qualifications, demonstration of experience in a field and classroom setting, experience with developing various sizes of field testing demonstrations, training materials utilizing innovative and creative educational techniques, as it relates to experience with emergency response, remedial action, and bench to field scale demonstrations and testing environments relative to CBRN contaminants, hazardous waste, and toxic material spills both accidental and deliberate.

Note: The availability of individuals being proposed to support the Key Personnel positions (Program Manager) and Non-Key Personnel shall be demonstrated through a letter of commitment to the contractor.

Evaluation Criteria III: Program Management Plan

The contractor shall be evaluated on the demonstrated effectiveness of its program management plan. The plan should be specifically tailored to the activities that will be conducted to meet the requirements of the PWS, as measured by the following equally weighted sub criterion:

A. Sub Criteria: Operational Approach – The contractor’s operational approach to performing the day to day tasks of the Performance Work Statement in a timely and efficient manner will be evaluated. Factors such as staffing levels, labor mix, schedule, internal and external communication, and subcontractor arrangements (as applicable) will be evaluated on how effective they are in terms of ensuring quality work products delivered in a timely, efficient manner. The effectiveness of the contractor’s proposed system for ensuring excellent internal and external communication will be evaluated. The effectiveness of the contractor’s mobilization plan for contract start-up to ensure that the contract is staffed, equipped and fully functional within 30 calendar days after contract award will be evaluated.

B. Sub Criteria: Cost/Performance Monitoring – The contractor shall be evaluated on the demonstrated adequacy of the systems proposed to track and monitor costs and performance so as to ensure performance within the established budgetary constraints and scheduled deadlines. The contractor’s proposed system performance monitoring will be evaluated on its effectiveness to track performance, to mitigate potential performance problems, and to resolve actual performance problems.

Evaluation Criteria IV: Past Performance

The contractor shall be evaluated on their demonstrated past performance history of at least three (3) contracts and/or subcontracts performed during the past three (3) years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in process, which are similar in scope, size, and technical complexity to this requirement as specified in the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5). Offerors with no relevant past performance history, or for whom information on past performance is not available, will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably on past performance and receive a neutral rating.

NOTE: Please follow the instructions found in Clause - EPAAR 1552.215-75 Past Performance Information (Oct 2000) (Deviation) for submission.

Evaluation Criteria V - Evaluation of Responsibility Matters

The Contractor’s Quality Management Plan (QMP) and Conflict of Interest (COI) Plan will each be rated on a PASS/FAIL basis as part of the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. Plans will be evaluated as follows:

A. Evaluation of Quality Management Plan – The contractor shall submit a Quality Management Plan which demonstrates the capability for quality assurance which will be evaluated against the “EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans” (Attachment

8) and determined to be acceptable or not acceptable. Notwithstanding the evaluation of a contractor with respect to the technical evaluation criteria or the evaluation of a contractor’s cost, a contractor that submits a plan that is ultimately unacceptable at time of award will not be eligible for contract award. The contractor’s Quality Management Plan will be evaluated as part of the contractor’s responsibility determination.

B. Conflict of Interest Plan – The contractor shall submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan describing the system that will be employed to identify actual or potential conflict of interest situations that may arise as a result of the work under this Task Order. The plan shall describe the steps that will be taken to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize an actual or potential conflict, and must address both organization and site-specific conflicts of interest for past and future work. This plan shall be developed utilizing the “Minimum Standards for EPA Contractors Conflict of Interest Plans” (Attachment 9).

In addition to the required minimum contract of the Conflict of Interest Plan, respondents shall also include a section that addresses the following: Relevant information about its own on-going or past environmentally-regulated activities and the impact that those activities could have on the firm’s judgment and objectivity in performing the contract. Accordingly, for each of the task areas described in the PWS, the offeror is required to submit to EPA an analysis of the potential for any organizational conflict of interest (OCI) that may occur during performance of the contract as a result of the firm’s past or on-going performance of environmentally-regulated activities. In particular, please discuss any activities that are identified on databases such as, but not limited to, EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online database (http://www.epa.gov/echo) and EPA’s EnviroFacts Data Warehouse (http://www/epa.gov/enviro/html/multisystem_query_java.html). The contractor’s submission shall discuss their approach for avoiding, neutralizing, and/or mitigating any OCIs that have the potential to occur.