Attachment 3 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Attachment 3 – Evaluation Criteria

Technical Evaluation Criteria

The U.S. Department of Education will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Although price is an important factor, technical merit is significantly more important than price.

The competitive range will include all offerors with a rating of “very good” or “good” on each technical evaluation criterion. Note that, following the submission and review of final proposals, the Panel Chair will recommend both the award of WWC-PESTO Task Order 1 to a single offeror, and the awarding of WWC-PESTO Blanket Purchase Agreement to each offeror in the competitive range, so multiple firms will be qualified to submit offers on future WWC-PESTO task orders without the need to assess their corporate experience or past performance. Task Order 1 award will depend on the six technical evaluation criteria A-F, listed below in descending order of importance, and on the price of the bid with all options.

Criterion A: Technical Qualifications of Proposed Staff

• The proposed project team has combined substantive content-area expertise in topics related to early childhood education, elementary education, secondary education, and postsecondary education, particularly regarding the following elements:

o Interventions for students struggling with behavior (the designated topic of the systematic reviews of evidence for Task Order 01).

o Methodological experience and certification to apply WWC standards (especially Version 4.1 standards) to review randomized-controlled trials (including cluster randomized-controlled trials), quasi-experimental design studies, and single case design studies.

o Experience and skill in applying systematic review standards when assessing research design and findings; and o Extensive experience developing and producing user-friendly products to communicate research findings to readers who may not have a research background.

• The staff proposed for the leadership of this project and each of the tasks have skills and successful experience leading work of a similar nature—such as conducting multiple study reviews, leading systematic review efforts, and working with panels of content experts--and of a similar size and scope.

Criterion B: Soundness of the Technical Approach

• The degree to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the purpose and context of the contract, the major issues and objectives, and how they relate to each task rather than merely repeating the information provided in the Performance Work Statement. and.

• The strength and quality of the proposed approach to conducting each of the tasks including the clarity of the approach, the feasibility of implementing the plan, and the prospects that the successful implementation of the plan would achieve the intended goal in a timely manner.

• The degree to which the proposal demonstrates creative strategies for achieving the goals of each task while maintaining a strong commitment to the rigorous procedures that are the foundation of the

WWC.

• The degree to which the proposed plan is clearly written, coherent, well organized, and demonstrates a commitment to detail and high-quality work.

Criterion C: Management of Tasks

• The quality of the procedures for controlling work performance, coordinating work of staff and sub-contractors, and ensuring work quality and timeliness.

• The degree to which the proposal provides more than a basic organization chart and instead provides strong justifications for the assigned roles on all aspects of the contract.

• The degree to which the staff included in the proposal have a clear division of responsibilities, well-defined lines of communication and authority, and sufficient time allocations to accomplish the various research, reporting, and dissemination tasks to which they have been assigned.

• The degree to which the staff proposed for the leadership of this project and their proposed time commitments to the project are consistent with a real leadership (and not merely advisory) role.

• The degree to which the proposal adequately identifies potential risks to successful completion of each task, and it demonstrates a capacity to effectively manage those risks.

• The degree to which the proposal describes a clear and convincing quality control plan that will ensure that deliverables are timely, complete, free of errors, and demonstrate the level of effort needed to successfully complete each task.

Criterion D: Substantive Small Business Participation

• The extent to which qualified staff from small businesses play key leadership roles on the proposed project at the project or task level. A “Very Good” rating is reserved for offerors in which a qualified small business is proposed as the prime contractor.

Criterion E: Related Corporate Experience

• There is evidence of prior successful corporate experience and capacity with projects of a similar nature, which includes delivering timely, quality products on or under budget.

• There is evidence of prior successful corporate experience in leading or participating in reviews of studies, or projects of similar scale, scope, and challenges.

• There is documentation of preparation of high-quality, practitioner-friendly resources of materials that communicate research findings to non-researcher audiences.

• There is a track record of maintaining well-qualified staff.

• There is a record of strong past performance in terms of quality, creativity, problem resolution, cost control, timeliness, business relations and customer service.

Criterion F: Past Performance

• Past performance information is submitted that is relevant to the nature, scope and complexity of the work outlined in the PWS. Information received from the contractor is favorable and does not contain any valid negative information.

Definitions and Process for Rating Scale

The following adjectival ratings shall be applied for each evaluation factor:

• Very Good: The offeror’s proposed solution exceeds the specified performance or capability in a beneficial way to the Department. The solution does not contain inconsistencies or incompatibilities. The response to this criterion has multiple strengths in meeting the requirements. The quote may or may not contain weaknesses that can easily be remedied. This rating is consistent with a very low risk of unsuccessful contract performance based on this factor.

• Good: The offeror’s proposed solution meets the performance or capability standards. The solution contains minor or insignificant inconsistencies or incompatibilities. The response to this criterion has strengths and may or may not have weaknesses, but the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. This rating is consistent with a low risk of unsuccessful contract performance based on this factor.

• Marginal: The offeror’s proposed solution fails to meet some of the performance or capability standards. The solution contains inconsistencies or flaws that could jeopardize performance. The response to this criterion may have strengths, but these strengths are offset by multiple weaknesses. This rating is consistent with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance based on this factor.

• Poor: The offeror’s proposed solution fails to meet the minimum performance requirements. The solution contains numerous inconsistencies. The response may contain strengths, but these are minimal and strongly outweighed by the weaknesses present. The response to this criterion requires extensive revision that amounts to a rewrite of multiple sections of the proposal to be good or very good. This rating is consistent with a high risk of unsuccessful contract performance based on this factor.

The following definitions shall be applied appropriately by Panel Members when evaluating a proposed solution and documenting technical evaluation findings:

• Strength – An attribute in the proposal, which can be beneficial to the program or greatly increase the probability of successful contract performance.

• Weakness – An attribute in the proposal that is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Price Evaluation Business proposals will not be scored or rated but shall be reviewed as part of the overall proposal evaluation process, so that a determination for cost reasonableness and realism in accordance with FAR

15.404 may be made. Additionally, the offeror’s responsibility will be ascertained in accordance with FAR 9.104‐1. The price of the Task Order 01 only will be evaluated prior to award of the task order. The CO may reject a proposal if a negative cost realism determination is made.