PR-25-USSS-3304 - Evaluation Methodology .pdf

Evaluation Factors and Methodology

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS and METHODOLOGY

2.1 Basis for Award

This is a best value/trade-off evaluation conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, meet all requirements of the solicitation, and conform to all required terms and conditions. The Government will use the factors stated in Section M2.4 to evaluate the offers and does not commit to evaluating offerors for strict compliance with all aspects of the PWS.

Award may be made to other than the Offeror with the lowest priced proposal, if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted due to nonprice factors merit. The Government may also award to other than the highest rated proposal, if it determines that a price premium is not warranted. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve only slightly better performance capabilities. If two or more proposals are determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e., approaching technically equivalency), price may become the determining factor and award may be made to the lower priced Offeror. The Government also reserves the right to award without exchanges or discussions or to make no award at all.

2.2 Evaluation Process.

The Government intends to award a single award, firm fixed price based on this RFP, but reserves the right to make no award, if it is determined to be in its best interest. The award will be made based on Best Value Tradeoff, which permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors. All factors are listed in descending order of importance. The factors in Phase 2, when combined, are more important than those of Phase 1, when combined. All non-price factors are more important than Price. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government.

2.3 Order of Importance

In making its award determination, the Government will consider the evaluation factors listed in the following descending order of importance.

Phase I:

Factor 1 – Oral Presentation

Phase II:

Factor 2 – Technical Capability Factor 3 – Management Approach Factor 4 – Experience/Qualification Factor 5 – Past Performance Factor 6 - Price

2.4 Evaluation Factors

PHASE 1: The Offerors are required to address the following:

Factor 1 – Oral Presentation

Through the Oral Presentations, the Government intends to understand the Offeror’s proposed approach to the PWS.

The Oral Presentation will be used as an opportunity to assess the viability of an offeror to successfully deliver it proposed approach and the feasibility of the approach, by evaluating the responses to the advance questions and the on-the-spot questions. The Government will evaluate the Oral Presentation, not the slides or any written submission

– written material is merely an aid to the oral presentation. However, inconsistencies between the oral presentation and the written material may be a basis for a lowered confidence rating.

Specific directions will be provided to the Offerors clarifying the date and time of the oral presentation; deadline for submission of questions prior to the presentation; and length of time allotted for the presentation. The presentation must address the following questions:

Describe your scheduling process for medical examination services.

How many providers do you have contracted nationwide for physical examinations and specialty services (i.e., audiogram and vision)?

o What is the process for recruiting in remote areas for medical examination services?

o When submitting a new facility request (provider) what is the turnaround as to when the facility is ready for use (scheduling)?

Do you staff any occupational health clinics presently? If yes, please describe the type of staffing, arrangements for staffing (e.g., contracted, employee, etc.), management of staff, and how backup staffing is provided.

Describe your process for providing travel consultations and required vaccinations and travel related medications to clients?

Describe the Prime or Teaming Partner’s experience with at least one recent (within the last three years of the solicitation due date) contract of similar size, scope, and complexity.

There will be advisory down select prior to proceeding to Phase II. Offerors will not submit their Phase II proposals until after receiving results of the advisory down select. The presentations will be evaluated based on the confidence ratings listed in 2.5.

PHASE II – The Offerors are required to address the following:

Factor 2 - Technical Capability:

The Government will evaluate its level of confidence that the Offeror’s submission was a comprehensive and complete technical proposal that demonstrates their ability to perform providing directly or through contracted facilities health services such as occupational health assessments included in sections 2.2 – Scope, 2.4.2 – Laboratory Testing, 2.4.3 – Technical Testing and Measurements, 2.4.4 Medical Examination and Consultation, 2.5 USSS Medical Surveillance Examination, 2.5.3 – Vaccines, 2.5.4 – Travel Medication, and a qualitative judgment regarding how the likelihood of the Offeror’s successful performance of the contract.

Factor 3 – Management Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach in overseeing the contract to include recruiting and maintaining key personnel and how they are vetted for key positions. Offerors will demonstrate that they have sufficient numbers of qualified staff in all the pertinent disciplines; or a careful, thorough Staffing and Recruitment Plan.

Factor 4 – Organizational Experience/Qualification.

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s relevant organizational experience, law enforcement experience is preferred. The evaluation will include the scope, nature, date, location, customer, and methods of previous work, of the offeror. It also allows for a qualitative judgment regarding the breadth, depth, and relevance of that work experience, and a qualitative judgment regarding how well the work was performed. The offerors shall provide resumes; or a careful, thorough Staffing and Recruitment Plan for the required staffing for the USSS Headquarters Health Unit as described in the PWS section 2.2. The resumes shall not exceed 3-pages per person. The offerors relevant experience shall be within the last 5 years.

Factor 5 - Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance as it applies to fulfilling existing requirements with a similar degree of complexity for the requirements set forth in the PWS. The Past Performance factor will be rated in accordance with the below confidence ratings. This will determine the Government’s confidence that the Offeror can successfully execute the requirements of the contract. The Government will utilize information pertaining to

Offeror performance on recent, relevant contracts as identified in the offeror’s proposal. The Government may independently obtain information from other relevant contracts and sources for the purpose of evaluating past Performance. Lack of relevant past performance will be given neutral weight. The past performance reference shall not exceed 3-pages per reference.

Factor 6 - Price

This factor will be evaluated for price reasonableness but not rated. The price for Base and Option Years will be added together to calculate a Total Evaluated Price by which the offeror will be evaluated. Transition costs will be excluded from the price evaluation. Offerors are required to provide a list of the subcontractors and their agreement and cost proposal.

Each offeror's price proposal will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(1) the analytical techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404-1 will be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the awarded price is fair and reasonable. The level of detail of this analysis will be determined by the Contracting Officer based on competition and other factors. The pricing proposal does not have a page limitation.

Offerors are strongly encouraged to offer discounted pricing.

2.5 Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation of Phase I Factor 1 will be done holistically with a consensus report. The evaluation team will evaluate the oral presentation as a group and immediately document the evaluation decision in real time.

The evaluation of Phase II Factors (Factor 2-4) will be done holistically with a rating scale of "high confidence," "some confidence," and "low confidence," representing the Government’s confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement and will be successful in performing the work.

The evaluation of Factor 5 will be evaluated as a neutral rating if no past performance is provided.

The evaluation of Factor 6 will be evaluated for price reasonableness but not rated.

RATINGS FOR FACTORS 2-5

Rating Definition

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.

Neutral No relevant past performance