Attch 7 Evaluation_A0003.pdf

ATTACHMENT 7-A0003

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION FACTORS

One (1) award will be made to the responsible Offeror submitting an overall Proposal that is determined most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

The evaluation will be conducted and selection will be made in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Homeland Security Acquisition Manual (HSAM), and the solicitation.

As a best value award decision will be made, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve a marginal increase in superior technical capability.

Best value evaluation is, in and of itself, a subjective assessment by the Government of the proposed solution that provides the optimal results to the Government. The Government will conduct a tradeoff analysis that involves the assessment of benefits of superior Proposal features (i.e., benefits clearly attributable to increased productivity, increased probability of successful task order performance, and unique and innovative approaches or capabilities) versus the total price. The tradeoff process could result in award to other than the lowest-priced Offeror or other than the highest rated Offeror on non-price factors.

This method does not use any aspects of FAR15.3. The use of this fair opportunity process does not obligate the Government to determine a competitive range, conduct discussions with any Offerors, solicit Proposals or revisions thereto, or use any other source selection techniques associated with FAR 15.3.

These services are commercial and available in the open market. Accordingly, the procedures at FAR Part 12 “Acquisition of Commercial Products and Services” will be followed.

To streamline the evaluation process, several DHS Procurement Innovation Lab (PIL) techniques will be used that include the following:

Phase I Advisory Down-Select – In a down-select, many offers are evaluated in the first phase under some of the evaluation factors and fewer offers are considered in one or more subsequent phases on the remaining evaluation factors. Down-select decisions are not competitive range determinations and are also not the Advisory Multi-Step Process under FAR 15.202. This solicitation does not utilize any techniques under FAR 15; this is a FAR 12 acquisition.

Phase II Oral Presentations – The purpose of Oral Presentations is to bring in actual technical staff to see and hear their proposed solutions. Key Personnel or company executives shall present an Oral presentation to give greater confidence the company knows the technical requirement. On-the-spot questions will be asked for an interactive dialogue. Consensus evaluation will be performed immediately following each offeror’s Oral presentation. A firm may attend only one Oral presentation, as the prime Offeror or as a subcontractor for another firm.

On-the-spot consensus – The evaluation team attends the Oral presentation and then, as a group, evaluates the Proposal and immediately documents the evaluation decision in real time before starting the evaluation of the next Proposal.

Confidence ratings – The Government will assess its level of confidence that the offering contractor will successfully perform all requirements in regards to the technical approach, staffing plan, and past performance.

Best suited then negotiate – The purpose is to work out any remaining issues with the apparent winner after evaluations have been completed/documented and the winner has been selected (but not announced). The Government can negotiate any remaining issues, technical and price, with the apparent awardee. This technique does not constitute discussions as defined in FAR subpart 15.3. This solicitation does not utilize any techniques under FAR 15; this is a FAR 12 acquisition.

Factor Identification –The Proposals received in response to solicitation # 70T01023R7670N010 for Services for Developing and Updating TSA Leadership Institute (LI) Curriculum and Training, will be evaluated using the following factors:

Phase I - Factor 1 – Demonstrated Prior Experience (Written) (10-page limit) Phase II - Factor 2 – Technical Approach (Oral Presentation) Phase II - Factor 3 – Staffing Plan (Written) (Plan = 5-page limit; Resumes = 2 page limit each) Phase II - Factor 4 – Past Performance (Attachment 8) (5-page limit) Phase II - Factor 5 – Price (Written) (Includes Attachments 2-5, & 10) (no page limit)

b. Order of Importance – Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. Factors 1–4 when combined are more important than Factor 5.

CONFIDENCE RATINGS

The following ratings will be utilized for Technical Factors 1-3:

CONFIDENCE RATING SYSTEM: FACTORS 1 – 3

RATING DEFINITION

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach that meets or exceeds the Government’s requirement, and will be successful in performing the contract with no Government intervention

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach that meets the Government’s requirement, and will be successful in performing the contract with little to no Government intervention.

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

The following ratings will be utilized for Technical Factor 4:

CONFIDENCE RATING SYSTEM: FACTOR 4 PAST PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable The Offeror’s past performance record indicates that they have a history of developing and delivering satisfactory services/products in the areas described in the RFP (or areas similar in size, scope and complexity to the solicitation and the PWS.)

Unacceptable The Offeror’s past performance verified record provides doubt that the offer will successfully perform in a manner that meets the Government’s requirement.

Neutral No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

Definitions

Benefit – An element of the Proposal exceeds a requirement of the RFP in a beneficial way to the Government.

Risk – A proposed element that has the potential to cause a disruption of schedule, an increase in price, or a degradation of performance.

Factor 1 – Demonstrated Prior Experience (Written)

Factor 1 shall be evaluated by the TET via an on-the-spot consensus using confidence ratings as detailed above.

Offerors receiving a rating of “Low Confidence” for Factor 1 will be provided advisory notification not to proceed to Phase II as part of the Phase I Advisory Down Select.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Demonstrated Prior Experience based upon the criteria listed below:

A. Offeror’s demonstrated experience in developing curriculum that provides progressive academic study to address the needs of supervisors, managers and executives providing a multi-disciplinary approach to leadership issues.

B. Offeror’s completion of the following experience statements:

a. Description of relevant projects developed for public or private organizations

b. Number of courses developed as part of the project

c. Length of time required to develop the full curriculum

d. Approach to delivering a progressive study program that builds on common themes and management approach

e. Approach to providing coaching

f. Mix of in-person and virtual learning

g. IHE Accreditation

Factor 2 – Technical Approach (Oral Presentation)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Approach based upon the criteria listed below:

Course Design and Curriculum

a. The curriculum should be at the bachelor or graduate level of study, as applicable, and should provide a multi-disciplinary approach to leadership issues with emphasis on leading in a risk-based security environment and cultivating strong abilities in the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs).

b. Proposals should include a discussion of the instructional techniques to be used.

The relative emphasis of case studies, lectures, simulation exercises, role-playing and application activities should be described. Contractors should only describe the instructional techniques that will be used for this effort and how they will be used.

c. The final curriculum will be developed in consultation with TSA upon contract award. However, contractors should orally present a draft curriculum outline as part of their Proposal with each week’s agenda and proposed instruction modules in their Proposals. The Proposal should include the rationale for their approach and the justification for their design. Oral Proposals should additionally include a schedule of study with the rationale for the particular schedule proposed. The schedule of study may be presented in a table format outlining each week and identifying the length of time between weeks, however, it must be concurrently spoken orally in order to be evaluated.

Program Learning Elements

d. The contractor shall design and implement the program using a mixture of the following elements. For all of the elements, the greatest emphasis should be placed on experiential learning in a risk-based security environment.

Classroom instruction Individual, Group/Team, Intact Work team Facilitated Peer Coaching Case studies/simulations Assessments of Participants, i.e., 360 assessments (pre and post) Application activities

Factor 2 shall be evaluated by the TET via an on-the-spot consensus using confidence ratings as described above.

Factor 3 – Staffing Plan (Written)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Staffing Plan based upon the criteria listed below:

The proposed staffing plan should include details that reflect the length and variety of experiences in similar educational programs.

The staffing plan shall be consistent with and meet or exceed all requirements under the Statement of Work section 3.1.

The Offeror shall furnish a resume for all proposed Key Personnel. Resumes must include experience, education, background, accomplishments, and other pertinent information.

Factor 3 shall be evaluated by the TET via an on-the-spot consensus using confidence ratings as described above.

Factor 4 – Past Performance (Written)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance information as provided in Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP Attachment 8) and other sources and assign confidence ratings for past performance as described above.

The TSA may contact those references during the evaluation process to verify relevant experience and level of performance. The TSA may, at its discretion, obtain and evaluate information from sources other than those provided by the Offeror.

The Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by the Offerors in their Proposal may be used to evaluate past performance. Since the Government may not interview all sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. Information may also be considered regarding past performance of any significant sub-Contractor. The Government may use other information available from other sources to evaluate a Offeror’s past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and to utilize information other than that provided by the Offeror. The Offeror must provide the information requested, or affirmatively state that it possesses no past performance.

The Offeror’s Past Performance will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s likelihood of successful performance in providing requirements similar in size, scope, and complexity of this solicitation.

The evaluation will consider both the relevance and quality of past projects. The Government may use present and/or past performance data obtained from a variety of sources, not just those identified by the Offeror, including but not limited to: publicly available reports, and/or data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating (CPAR) system. The information gathered for past performance may also be used in the responsibility determination.

Offerors without current or prior relevant experience will automatically be rated as “neutral” for this factor.

Factor 5 – Price (Written)

The Government will evaluate and determine that the prices and any proposed discounts are fair and reasonable. Before award, the technical evaluation team will determine if the fixed prices are appropriate for the level of work proposed. If clarifications on price are necessary, the

Contracting Officer will initiate the contact with the Offeror. Factor 5 will not be giving a confidence rating.

1. The Government will evaluate individual item prices as well as the total evaluated price.

2. The Offeror’s price will be evaluated to determine reasonableness and completeness.

3. Reasonableness: The reasonableness of the price is defined as the acceptability and validity of cost estimating. The Government will review the rationale and supporting data for proposed prices.

4. Completeness: The completeness of the price is defined as the responsiveness in addressing all the solicitation requirements. The Government will review proposed prices for each item to ensure that data is provided in sufficient, logical detail to allow a complete analysis and evaluation of the price.

5. The Proposal may be rejected if it is determined that unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. A Proposal with unbalanced pricing is a Proposal based on prices that are significantly less than cost for some items and prices that are significantly overstated for other items of a similar nature.

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

7. In its price evaluation, the Government will utilize a sample IDIQ task orders (RFP Attachment 10), one for each year of the contract (or total of five (5) sample task orders).

In addition, the Government MAY also, at its discretion, use any of the price evaluation techniques found in FAR 15.404-1(b). However, remember this is not a FAR 15 acquisition; this procurement utilizes the procedures at FAR 12.

8. To account for the option periods possible under FAR 52.217-8 (maximum of six months), the Government will evaluate the option to extend services by adding six months of the Offeror’s IDIQ option year four (4) sample task order price to the Offeror’s total price.

This amount will be added to 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 year and option years 1–4, 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 period of performance 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.

9. Evaluation of option periods does not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

10. The Government will evaluate the total evaluated price, escalation rates across all years, and the prices of individual labor categories.

11. The Government will evaluate the level of data rights provided by the itemized list required by FAR 52.227-15 Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software. Pursuant to SOW Section 4.4.3, the Government requires that the developed curriculum materials be produced and delivered with applicable data rights to ensure continuity of training materials and methods through use in subsequent Leadership and Training programs.

12. The Government will review and evaluate the additional narrative summary regarding assumptions, conditions and exceptions (if any) to the terms and conditions of this solicitation in the pricing section.

(End of Attachment 7)