Badge Evaluation Criteria Final.pdf

Instructions to Offerors- Law Enforcement Badges

The Government intends to award a 5-year Firm Fixed Price (FFP) IDIQ. The requirement will be solicited and awarded as a tradeoff basis. The requirement will be solicited and awarded on as a tradeoff basis. Technical Proposal, Price Proposal, and Past performance should be submitted at due date. Evaluation will also include a comparison of warranty of the badges as well as quickest turnaround time offered per badge order. Note: The initial badge order will be the largest. The awardee will be required to provide production samples prior to manufacturing 1st order.

A statement of work (SOW) is provided as an attachment. It is expected that the offeror will within its response prepare a proposal based on the work required to address how it meets the minimum requirements. Please also include rates and pricing structure.

Contractors are responsible for the escalation of badge cost per each year. The minimum guarantee for the award is 500 badges and will be meet within the first badge order.

Cover Page:

Cover page shall include the following information:

• Solicitation number

• Date of submission

• Name, address & website information

• Name, title, and signature of the prime contractor’s authorized representative (signature authority)

• Name and point of contact (POC) telephone number, and email address (primary POC for this proposal)

The table of contents shall be no longer than one (1) page and will not be included in the final page count.

Please be advised that cover letters will be included in the final page count.

The use of charts, tables and graphs are permitted. Please be advised that these items will be included in the total allowable page count. The use of color is permitted. Please be advised that your full quote must be readable when printed in black and white.

The quote will be no longer than fifteen (15) pages. 8.5 x 11 Page sizes are acceptable.

All proposals must be submitted via email to crystal.pressley@usss.dhs.gov and shauntynee.penix@usss.dhs.gov proposals are due NO LATER THAN NOON (EST) on

September 1, 2025, 12:00 pm EST.

mailto:crystal.pressley@usss.dhs.gov mailto:shauntynee.penix@usss.dhs.gov

The Government intends to evaluate proposals without discussions with Offerors, therefore, the

Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

The evaluation factors which will be used in evaluating offers are listed below:

• Warranty, and Delivery

• Technical, Experience and Price

Warranty and Delivery Factors:

The Government will evaluate the vendors warranty and delivery schedule as outlined in the Statement of work. Warranty and Delivery will be rated as “Acceptable and/or “non-acceptable”

Technical, Experience, and Price Factors:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Recent Relevant Corporate Experience

Factor 3: Price

This is a best-value/trade-off evaluation conducted in accordance with FAR Part 36. In order 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. Offerors shall strictly adhere to the page limits and a 12-point font. Pages shall be standard letter sized paper (8 ½ x 11”).

Each offeror must submit a written proposal which demonstrates the offeror’s capabilities to perform the requirements.

Proposals shall be evaluated using the Confidence Ratings in the table below and receive one overall rating per factor for Factors 1 and 2. The following definitions are applicable to the adjectival ratings build-up:

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

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

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.

Factor 1: Technical Factor

The technical factor shall comprise the offeror’s proposed approach to meet the overall requirements set forth within this RFP and demonstrate the offeror understands the requirements. Evaluation criteria will be:

- Ability to meet the requirements in the SOW with all factors being considered.

Technical evaluation page limit is ten (10) pages.

Factor 2: Recent Relevant Corporate Experience

Recent relevant experience will demonstrate two (2) contracts of the same or similar technical scope to the work described in the Performance Work Statement, and that is of the same or similar contractual complexity (contract type) and magnitude (size) as in this solicitation. Examples must be of contracts the contractor has performed that is no older than five (5) years old. Page limit will be two pages for each contract for recent/relevant experience.

Factor 3: Price

The offeror shall provide all cost information with sufficient documentation to evaluate price. Offerors shall use the provided bid sheet with back-up documentation to clarify the price proposal submitted. Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror's price proposal. Reasonableness will be based on one or more of the following: proposed price comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), comparison to other offers or other price analysis techniques referenced in FAR15.404-1.

The source selection evaluation criteria will apply Best Value with Tradeoff. A tradeoff process is appropriate in this case as it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest price offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. The greatest value concept provides the opportunity for a cost/technical trade off and does not require that the award be made to the offeror submitting the lowest cost or price or the highest technically rated offeror. However, the Government will not make an award at a price premium it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one

Technical and Relevant Corporate Experience proposal over another.

The evaluation factors will be used to evaluate all proposals. The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows:

• All non-price evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

• Non-price factors are of equal importance.