Attachment_3_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3

Solicitation AG-3144-S-KK-0001

Online Training Courses for USDA

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 1 of 11

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE LIMITS

TRANSMITTAL AND COVER LETTER

EVALUATION

Past Performance:

Technical Approach:

Price: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10

Award

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 2 of 11

Submission Requirements:

QUESTIONS

If you have questions regarding this requirement, please submit your inquiries immediately via e-mail to:

Kasey.koch@ftc.usda.gov

No later than August 7, 2015, 5:00 PM Mountain Standard Time. Questions must be submitted via email to above referenced email address. Questions with the Government’s responses will be posted via an amendment. Please be advised that the Government reserves the right to transmit those questions and answers of a common interest to all prospective Offerors.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

The following is established as the specific information and format required for any proposal submitted. Incomplete proposals are not acceptable. Each offeror must submit one complete original proposal package as well as two (2) additional copies to the below address

a. To aid in the evaluation process, proposals shall be complete, comprehensive, and clearly presented.

b. Proposals shall be neat, indexed (cross indexed as appropriate) and assembled in an orderly manner. Please try and mirror the requirements document as much as possible so a stated fact or reference may be directly attributed to a requirement.

c. Elaborate art work, expensive paper/binding, and expensive visual and other presentation aids are neither necessary nor desired. All pages of each part shall be appropriately numbered and identified with the submitting firm’s name and the Request for Proposal (RFP) number.

Proposal Due Date and Delivery

One original proposal, all volumes listed in this document, must be delivered to the following address on or before the RFP closing date of August 10, 2015 3:00 PM Mountain Standard Time.

Two additional hard copies of proposals must also be delivered to the following address by the RFP closing date:

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 3 of 11

USDA/DM/OPPM/POD

Attn: Kasey Koch 970-295-5291

2150 Centre Ave, Bldg A, Ste 145

Fort Collins, CO 80526

PAGE LIMITS

2 pages for Transmittal/Cover Letter

20 pages for Past Performance

4 Pages for Pricing Proposal

FORMATTING

Page size 8.5 by 11 inches with 1 inch margins. Paragraphs single spaced. Minimum font size/style 10 point Times New Roman font for Text, 9 point font in the Arial family for Tables, and 8 point font in the Arial family for Graphics. Tables and graphics may be landscape; all other text must be portrait.

If the offeror uses a different format (font size, margin, etc.), the government reserves the right to adjust the proposal to fit the parameters of the format as stated in the RFP, and if this results in the proposal exceeding the page limitations in any one area, the government will not consider those excess pages.

TRANSMITTAL AND COVER LETTER

The offeror’s transmittal and cover letter for the proposal must contain the name, phone number and email address of the person to be contacted concerning any matter related to the solicitation.

Include the following in this section:

o DUNS number o Company name and mailing address o Date submitted and proposal expiration date o All of the above-cited information for each entity on the proposed team, if a team is proposed

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 4 of 11

EVALUATION

(a) The Government will award a task/delivery order/award resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Past Performance 40%

Factor 2: Technical Approach 50%

Factor 3: Price 10%

a) Factors above are listed in descending order of importance, factors 1 and 2, when combined, are significantly more important than factor 3. Trade-offs may be utilized in evaluation and award determination to the offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the Government.

b) If the lowest evaluated price offeror has also received the highest rated past performance and technical approach rating, this offeror’s proposal represents the best value for this acquisition and award shall be made to this offeror, subject to a positive responsibility determination.

c) The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest evaluated price offeror if the low offeror receives other than the highest rating. In these cases, the weighting of importance of factors identified in (a) above will be utilized. The source selection authority shall make an assessment of the price proposed and the performance confidence rating and Technical approach rating assigned to trade-off between the three and make a best-value determination of which offer provides the greatest value to the Government.

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 5 of 11

Past Performance:

Past performance will be evaluated as a factor in determining the contract award and the evaluation process is as follows:

All offerors will receive a performance confidence assessment rating as defined in the table titled Past Performance Confidence Assessment Section, below; which will be based on the following.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment:

Definitions:

“Performance confidence assessment” is an evaluation of the likelihood (or government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully complete the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance.

(1) Performance Confidence will be evaluated in accordance with the information presented below. In assessing past performance, the evaluators will employ several approaches including:

(a) Reviewing the experience listed in the proposal.

(b) Using data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. (such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS).

(2) The offeror’s past performance will be evaluated through the accomplishment of a confidence assessment rating based on aspects of the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance and quality of performance, focusing on and targeting performance that is relevant to this project as defined in the table titled Past Performance Confidence Assessment below. For each contract submitted under Past Performance, the Government will make a determination of whether the contract is Recent and then will assess an overall Relevancy and Quality rating for each contract. The offeror will receive an overall relevancy or quality rating based on the technical information submitted in the proposal and the overall Confidence rating the offeror receives.

(a) Recency: Recent performance is defined as the offeror's previous experience within the past three years from the issuance date of this RFP.

(b) Relevancy: The Source Selection Authority will consider performance information for relevancy in the performance of contractor’s previous efforts similar, in terms of the magnitude of effort and complexities, to this solicitation.

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 6 of 11

(i) Relevancy will also consider such things as contracts or programs involving performing support as outlined in the objectives and activities described in the Statement of Work (SOW). NOTE: The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

(ii) Past Performance references and information that are determined to be relevant, based on the table below, will carry a higher weight than those determined to be somewhat relevant and not relevant when determining the final confidence rating.

(ii) The following definitions apply to determining relevancy.

(c) Quality of Performance: The quality of performance will be assessed using the quality definitions below:

RELEVANCY

Rating Description

RELEVANT Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT

RELEVANT

Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation required.

QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE

Rating Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the customer's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 7 of 11

(i) In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror's performance meets basic contract requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the Offeror's history of adhering to schedules, (including administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

(d) The past performance assessment process will result in an overall confidence rating using the ratings identified below. This confidence assessment represents the Government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. If adverse past performance is received, the offeror will be afforded an opportunity to address the adverse information unless the information is obtained through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the customer's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S) Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M) Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

UNKNOWN (N/A) Did not observe performance in this area.

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 8 of 11

System (CPARS)(in which case the offeror has already had an opportunity to respond).

(3) Clarifications: Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information), or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or, to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 9 of 11

(4) If the Government received, for a given Offeror, no past performance information, and can locate no other sources of relevant past performance information for the Offeror, the Offeror will receive a neutral (neither favorable nor unfavorable) past performance rating.

Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate offeror’s technical submissions and assign an evaluation rating based on the table listed below in this section. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated by assessing the likelihood and the degree to which the proposed technical approach meets all requirements, constraints, and challenges of the requirement and demonstrates a clear understanding of the Online Training Courses for USDA SOW. The proposal will also be evaluated on evidence of specific methods, techniques, and innovative approaches that demonstrate the ability to meet all the defined SOW requirements. The Contractor’s proposal need not restate the requirements as defined in the SOW, instead, outline a clear path for accomplishing the goals and objectives in an innovative, collaborative, and true partnership approach with the Federal government.

The Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal will consider the strengths, weaknesses and risks of the Offeror’s technical approach in addressing all requirements and constraints mentioned in the Online Training Courses for USDA SOW. All sub-factors listed below carry equal weight comparative to each other.

a) Comprehensive strategy for the effective and efficient management of contract activities

(meetings all requirements and deliverables and managing overall costs) to successfully fulfill the requirements of the SOW. The approach should address all aspects of Program Management found within the SOW.

b) Clearly identifies the methods, techniques and phases of application development and deployment to be employed by the Offeor to meet all of the requirements set forth in the SOW;

c) A comprehensive quality control approach that serves as the framework for the offeror’s process for delivering quality services and outlining “how” the offeror will achieve quality results to meet the requirements set forth in the SOW;

d) A comprehensive risk analysis and management approach that accounts for all significant inherent and introduced technical, schedule, and cost risks;

e) Identifies how the proposed solution will deliver timely, standard, stable, reliable, secure, flexible, responsive, compliant, and cost effective services to meet the SOW requirements;

f) Outlines a solution that meets the SOW requirements that allows for seamless functionality for a mobile workforce in both a connected and disconnected mode.

Technical and Management Approach Ratings

Rating Abbreviation Risk Level Definition

Excellent E Very Low

Risk

The proposal contains no deficiencies or weaknesses. Based on information provided, there is no doubt that the offeror demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the services required to meet or exceed most contract requirements.

The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated.

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 10 of 11

Very Good VG Low Risk The proposal contains no deficiencies and only a few minor weaknesses that do not require discussions. Based on the information provided, there is little doubt that the offeror demonstrates a high quality of understanding of the services required to meet or exceed some contract requirements.

Satisfactory S Moderate

Risk

The proposal contains no deficiencies and some weaknesses.

Based on the information provided, the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the services required to meet contract requirements.

Poor P High Risk The proposal contains deficiencies and significant weaknesses.

Based on information provided, there is doubt that the contractor understands the services required to meet the contract requirements. Requirement/services can be met only with major changes to the proposal.

Unacceptable U Unacceptable

Risk

Technical proposal has many deficiencies and/or gross omissions; failure to understand much of the scope of work necessary to perform the required tasks; failure to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling much of the government's requirements; failure to meet many personnel requirements in the solicitation. (When applying this adjective to a proposal as a whole, the technical proposal would have to be so unacceptable in one or more areas that it would have to be completely revised in order to attempt to make it other than unacceptable.)

Price:

The government shall evaluate all offers by total price inclusive of contract fee and options.

Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As previously stated, past performance and technical approach factors are more important than price.

Selection of the offeror to perform this task order will be based on the Government’s assessment of the best overall value.

The Government will review the price proposal for completeness and accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the Offeror properly understands the price proposal instructions.

The Offeror’s proposal will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

1) Checking arithmetic in all computations;

2) Making sure that all prices/costs are summarized correctly; and

3) Comparing electronic submittals with hard copies.

Unit (base/option or phase) prices shall reflect the intrinsic value of an item or service and shall be in proportion to an item’s base cost. An unbalanced proposal is one that distributes costs to line items or option periods using a method that distorts the unit prices, or when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Page 11 of 11 or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A determination will be made regarding whether the pricing appears unbalanced either for the total price of the proposal or separately priced line items or option periods. An analysis will be made by item, resource, quantity, and option/phase to identify any unbalanced pricing patterns. A proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Offerors are expected to establish a reasonable price relationship between all price elements.

An evaluation of the Offerors’ price proposals will be made to determine if they are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the Technical Proposal. Reasonableness determinations will be made by determining if competition exists, by comparing proposed price with established commercial prices, other contract vehicles, and/or by comparing proposed price with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The IGCE is not releasable to the public.

Risk refers to any aspect of the Offerors’ proposals that could have significant negative cost consequences for the Government. Proposals will be assessed to identify potential risks. Where cost/price risk is assessed, it may be described in quantitative terms or used as a best-value discriminator.

Award

Award shall be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer, in conforming to this RFP, provides the overall best value to the Government, past performance, technical and price evaluation factors considered. As previously stated, past performance and technical factors are significantly more important than price. In the event quotes are evaluated as past performance and technically equal in quality, price will not become a major consideration in selecting the successful offeror.

The Government may make award without discussions. If award is made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Discussions may be needed if significant questions may affect the award decision arise during evaluation.