Sound-Sensible-Webinar.ppt
PPT presentation 594 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NOP Sound and Sensible Certification Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- AG-6395-S-14-0069
About this file
Copy of the Webinar Slides
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| S-14-0069_Q A_1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Webinar_PDF.pdf | ||
| AG-6395-S-14-0069_Sound_and_Sensible_Certification.pdf | ||
| PWS-Sound-Sensible-Cert-Models_draft.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Welcome!
This Webinar is Being Recorded and a link will be posted on the Solicitation Website: FedBizOpps.gov
“Sound and Sensible Certification Solicitation” Industry Webinar
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program (NOP)
AND
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Business Services - Contracting Team June 11, 2014
Overview and Introductions Webinar Goal: Provide information to potential bidders to support proposal preparation for the “NOP Sound and Sensible Certification Solicitation” (AG-6395-S-14-0069)
| Presenters: |
| Jennifer Tucker: NOP Associate Deputy Administrator and Contract Technical Contact |
| Nathan Johnson: APHIS Contracting Officer |
Interacting with Us: You may send us questions using the Chat box. We will answer questions in a generalized way only (so as support all audience members), and will not disclose who asked each question. All audience members will remain on mute for call.
Agenda
| Solicitation Overview |
| Proposal Evaluation Criteria |
| Proposal Preparation – Best Practices |
| Proposal Evaluation Process |
| Critical Websites |
| Next Steps |
Solicitation Overview Contract Objective: Encourage the initiation and roll-out of new organic certification approaches, training, technical assistance, and outreach programs and materials.
The solicitation invites proposals for projects that will:
| Help USDA and all certifiers develop and implement sound and sensible organic certification processes |
| Provide training modules, technical assistance, or outreach programs concerning different aspects of organic agriculture or organic certification |
Proposal Evaluation Criteria
| Criteria 1: Price: |
| How contractor allocates labor hours and materials to conduct project |
| How pricing is allocated to each task |
| Overall price reasonableness for the deliverables proposed (labor categories, rates, number of hours) |
We estimate 10-15 total awards will be made at a value of approximately between $20,000 and $200,000 each.
More on pricing in “Best Practices”
| Criteria 2: Project Approach and Viability: |
| Contractor’s description of its proposed project. |
| Include target audiences, project design and implementation approach, proposed approach to the tasks, deliverables, and schedule. |
| Address the extent to which project is likely to lead to increased certification success and compliance for the target audience(s) identified and the projected long-term viability of the project post-contract period is over. |
| Must include, at a minimum, a draft copy of Task 1 (See Deliverables Section: Draft Project Plan) |
| Criteria 3: Originality, Innovation, and Creativity |
| Originality in identifying and addressing a need or problem that has not been previously addressed, and/or |
| Developing innovative or creative approaches for known needs or problems. |
| Criteria 4: Project Team – Partners and Key Staff |
| Contractors are encouraged to identify and partner with subcontractors that can help achieve project and goals. |
| Include resumes of key staff proposed for the project. (Key staff: committed to this project) |
| Resumes must identify educational and technical qualifications and past experience of project personnel. |
| Criteria 5: Past Performance |
| Past performance is not a measure of technical capability but rather a measure to the degree to which an offeror has satisfied past customers, and complied with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. |
| All things being equal, contractors with more relevant past performance will be rated higher. |
| Contractors with no past performance information will be given a neutral rating. |
| We will be checking references, so please confirm contact information before putting in proposal. |
Proposal Preparation – Best Practices
| Requirements: Read and Follow the Instructions |
| Read solicitation carefully and follow all the directions! |
| Make sure you know what must be included, page limits (including what’s in page count restriction and what is not), how to submit it, and other requirements. |
| Consider highlighting requirements (they are throughout the solicitation) and developing a checklist or “traceability matrix.” |
Structure: Be Creative with Your Project, Not Your Proposal Structure
| The solicitation provides a template outline for your proposal – use it! Make it easy for evaluation team to map your response against the requirements and criteria. |
| Use the same terms as the solicitation for maximum traceability (don’t make us guess what criteria you are writing about). |
| Do checks for internal consistency – e.g., does your project team match up to the labor categories in your pricing? Are both reasonable when considered against your project plan? |
| Clarity on Team: |
| If teaming, be clear about which organization is the lead (“prime contractor”) and which are supporting (“subcontractors”). |
| Only one organization in your team can be the “prime.” That organization is the primary point of contact with the government, holds ultimate accountability for project delivery, and is the one to receive payment. (It does NOT, however, have to do the majority of the work.) |
| Explain “who is doing what” on the team, and how it is organized for project delivery. We do not need details on your subcontracting arrangements/agreements. |
| Pricing: |
| We are interested in your labor categories, and the associated “burdened” or “loaded” rate. The loaded rate includes your overhead and profit (if applicable) – we do not need/want to see how your rates were developed – we just want the hourly rate per labor category. |
| Pricing should list number of hours estimated for each category for each task – with totals for tasks/deliverables, and a total for the project. |
| Explain any materials with a cost breakout that helps us understand how you reached your proposed amount. |
| Include any assumptions that will explain or help us understand your pricing. |
Proposal Evaluation Process
| Proposals will be evaluated by a team with expertise in project management, contracting, organic certification and agriculture, and training/outreach. |
| All proposal team members will sign non-disclosures and Conflict of Interest forms. |
| Each team member individually scores each proposal against the criteria, with explanations for ratings. |
| If significant differences are seen in ratings for any one proposal, a discussion is held to identify sources of disagreement and reach a consensus rating. |
| This is a “best value,” multiple award contract. We will be assessing projects individually, and the mix of projects across the full proposal set. |
| NOP recommends awards and provides rating sheets; |
APHIS Contracting Office holds final authority to award.
Critical Websites Small Business Administration: http://www.sba.gov/content/register-government-contracting
System of Award Management (SAM):
https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/
Next Steps
| Question Deadline: Due June 13, 2014 |
| Nathan Johnson: Nathan.D.Johnson@aphis.usda.gov |
| Do not send questions to the NOP |
| Proposals Due: Thursday, June 26, 2014 at 3:00 PM Central |
| Proposal Evaluations: July, Early August |
| We anticipate awards before end of September 2014 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .