Attachment 2 - Evaluation Criteria and Submission Instructions.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION COURSES

SOLICITATION #93310021Q0004

EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS FOR AWARD

FMCS Office of Procurement and Operational Support anticipates award of a firm fixed priced purchase resulting from this solicitation to the responsible quoter whose quote, conforming to this solicitation, is deemed to be the best value to the Government. Evaluation factors include Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price.

Technical Acceptability is more important than Past Performance. Non-price factors, when combined, are more important than Price. In addition, Technical Acceptability has four subfactors, including Course Overviews, Course Outlines, Research Background, and Organizational Experience. All subfactors are all of equal importance.

Technical Acceptability: Technical information will be evaluated using the following ratings to determine if the quoter’s submission meets the criteria listed in the Statement of Work (SOW).

Past Performance: Past performance information will be evaluated to determine the quoter’s ability to perform the contract successfully and the degree of performance risk associated with a quoter. FMCS will use its discretion to determine the sources of past performance information. The information may be obtained from references provided, FMCS’ knowledge of contractor performance, other Government agencies or commercial

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

Rating Standard

Exceptional Quote contains significant strengths and no weaknesses. The quote exceeds the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW and offers value-added methodologies for improving service that benefit the Government. The evaluator has no doubt that the quoter can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW. The quoter acknowledges risks and develops an approach that proactively identifies and mitigates risks and looks to reduce or eliminate future risks. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Acceptable Quote contains strengths that outweigh any existing weaknesses. The quote meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the quoter can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Marginal Quote contains one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. The quote does not meet all the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW.

The evaluator has some doubt that the quoter can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable An unacceptable quote contains one or more significant weaknesses and deficiencies.

Quote fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the quoter will be unable to successfully complete the required tasking. The quote does not adequately acknowledge or address risk, mitigate risk, or may introduce risk. Quote is unawardable.

entities, or past performance databases. There are two elements of past performance. The first is to evaluate the quoter’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the quoter is to the effort stipulated in the SOW. The four levels of relevance are: Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. The second element of past performance is to rate the past performance information using the adjectival ratings below.

Price: Evaluated price will be the total price for the base and the option period. NOTE: Evaluation of the option does not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

In addition to the referenced provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offeror – Commercial Items, quoters shall provide the following information:

1. Technical Acceptability

A. Course Overviews – Provide an overview of the course and certification process for each of the three topics required in the SOW. Each overview should provide a general description of the course/process, benefits of the course/process, who the intended audience is, and how long the course/process is.

B. Course Outlines – Provide a course outline for each of the training and certification courses required in the SOW. Each outline should include specific learning objectives/outcomes as well as a schedule for meeting those objectives/outcomes.

C. Research Background – Provide a narrative detailing the research on which the proposed courses are based. This narrative should not exceed ten (10) typed pages.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Rating Standard

Exceptional An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Acceptable A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

Marginal A Marginal rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

Unacceptable An Unacceptable rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the Contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

Neutral No information or references provided are not relevant. Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

D. Organizational Experience – Provide a narrative detailing the organization’s history and experience providing the same or similar courses to other customers, especially to other Federal agencies. The narrative shall not exceed five (5) typed pages.

2. Past Performance - Complete Sections 1-4 of Attachment 3 – Past Performance Questionnaire document for three (3) references under which work similar to the requirements described in the SOW has been performed and send to references so they can complete the remainder of the document. The experience must be within the timeframe of 2017 – 2020. Please instruct references to return completed questionnaires to eletourneau@fmcs.gov no later than February 12, 2020.

3. Price – Complete Attachment 4 – Vendor Price Sheet

4. Complete Attachment 5 – NDAA 889 Certification

4. Remittance address, Tax Identification Number, Dunn and Bradstreet Number and Cage Code

5. Validity of quote (Please specify if the quote is valid for 30 days from solicitation response date)

The Government plans to evaluate quotes and make award without conducting discussions. As such, quoters are advised to submit their pricing quotes on the most favorable basis since the Government reserves the right to make an award on initial quotes. However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with quoters deemed to have the most highly rated quotes.

Quotes should be submitted to Erika LeTourneau, eletourneau@fmcs.gov, no later than 3:00PM EDT, Wednesday, February 10, 2021. No faxed or mailed quotes will be accepted. Please reference the solicitation number on your quote. NOTE: LATE QUOTES MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR EVALUATION.

mailto:eletourneau@fmcs.gov mailto:eletourneau@fmcs.gov