Attachment 2 Section M - Technical Evaluation Factors Security-OCSO DR4-827-NC.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS SECURITY GUARD CONTRACTS (OCSO)

Evaluation Factors for Award: Award will be made to the responsive, responsible contractor who provides the best value to the Government. In performing the best value trade-off analysis, the Technical and Past Performance, when combined are significantly more important than price. Each quotation will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

Order of Importance: Order of importance should say: Factors 1-2 are considered equal. Factors 1-2 are significantly more important than price. This is a Best Value – Trade Off requirement.

1. Technical Approach

2. Past Performance

3. Price

For each factor, evaluate the following:

• Strengths- An element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government.

• Weakness-A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Deficiency- A material failure of an offer to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in an offer that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor 1: Technical Approach - The response must include answers and/or provide proof to the following questions:

Question 1. Please provide in detail how you (contractor) will staff this site?

Question 2. Please provide your ability to staff this site within a 48 hours of request.

Question 3. How many Protective Service Officers (PSOs) do you currently have available to staff the site?

Question 4. Some sites/locations are in an area that may have very little hotel accommodations. How will you as the contractor overcome any lodging issues if they arise for PSOs to ensure PSOs arrive on time for the start of scheduled shifts?

Question 5. Does your company have the required equipment to ensure the safety and security of the PSOs and provide safety and security to FEMA personnel and assets in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW)?

Question 6. - What approach(es) will your company undertake to demonstrate how it will fulfill and comply with the requirements in the SOW?

All Offerors: - The response must include answers and/or provide evidence to the following;

• Offeror must provide all documents for minimum qualifications – see SOW 3.1 & 3.4.7.10;

• Offeror must provide proof of insurance;

• Offeror must provide a copy State License;

• Offeror must provide the City and or County License, if applicable;

• Offeror must provide license of the security company or a Letter from the individual that owns all the weapons stating the company may utilize these weapons for security functions;

• Offeror must provide weapons by manufacturer, model, and serial number. Also known as MAL (Master Authorization List) – See

SOW 7.2.11

• Offeror must provide List of Uniform and Equipment or plan to purchase, see SOW 7.1;

• Offeror must provide a Draft Transition Plan;

• Proof of one-month’s payment as certified by Offeror’s banking institution.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will assess its level of confidence that the Contractor can successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on the projects submitted in response to this factor and other past performance information available to the Government.

The Government will not restrict its consideration to the information provided in the proposal and may consider any other available information available in CPARS and/or first-hand knowledge. Consideration may be given to: (1) Quality of services provided, (2) Cost control, (3) Schedule/timeliness, (4) Management, and (5) Business relations/Customer Service of the offeror’s past performance.

The Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably if it lacks relevant past performance.

For the purpose of this evaluation, “Past Performance” is defined as the Offeror’s performance (how well they performed) on active (to the extent completed) and completed contracts, projects, jobs, and endeavors. This includes the past performance of the prime Offeror and any proposed subcontractor for this effort. Offerors shall provide up to three (3) past performance references for work within the past three (3) years. The following shall be included for each reference.

• Project title

• Description of the project

• Role (Prime/Subcontractor)

• Contract number and, if applicable, task order number

• Dollar value and type of contract

• Government Agency/Client

• Period of Performance

• Current status, e.g., completed and/or if in progress, start and estimated completion dates

• Description and self-assessment of the work performed under each project and why it is relevant to this effort

• Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this program and are proposed to support the instant acquisition; also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions

• Include relevant information concerning your compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, on the contract you are submitting (if applicable)

The technical evaluation rating criteria are defined as follow:

Rating DESCRIPTION

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the requirements with little or no Government intervention.

Demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has significant strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Contractor understands the requirements with some Government intervention.

Demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable solution with few or no strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the requirements even with Government intervention.

Demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirement and an approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Factor 3: Price – Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements. Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates. Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar services. The price will also be evaluated for reasonableness and evaluated buy comparison with historical data.

EVALUATION FOR TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s comprehensive approach to achieving the overall objectives outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) based on the responses to the technical questions.

Each response will be assessed based on the evaluated criteria. The adjectival rating and price shall be considered in determining the best value. Please note, lowest price does not necessarily equate to best value. The adjectival rating scheme and definitions are provided below.

RATING DEFINITIONS FOR TECHNICAL

Rating DESCRIPTION

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Contractor understands the requirements with little or no Government intervention.

Demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has significant strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Contractor understands the requirements with some Government intervention.

Demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable solution with few or no strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the requirements even with Government intervention.

Demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirement and an approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

HIGH CONFIDENCE: The Government has high confidence that the Contractor 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 confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

LOW CONFIDENCE: The Government has low confidence that the Contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

EVALUATION FOR PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the SOW requirements based on overall performance records of previous FEMA contracts, other government contracts, reviews of CPARS and any other performance history relevant to assessing the offeror’s probability of meeting the SOW’s requirement. The Offerors’ past performance will be rated using the evaluation rating definitions for past performance provided in the below table.

The Past Performance rating criteria are as follow:

a. The government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevance. The following definitions apply:

• Very Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort, complexities, and contract dollars this task order proposal requires.

• Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort, complexities, and contract dollars this task order proposal requires.

b. Rating System for Past Performance Evaluation Factors:

• Superior: Based on the offeror’s past performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

• Very Good: Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the offeror met the requirements and provided some benefit to the government.

• Satisfactory: Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is likely that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

• Unsatisfactory: Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is not likely that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

• Neutral: No relevant past performance is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating.

This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

PRICE:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements. Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates. Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar services.

BASIS OF AWARD: Best Value – Trade Off

The Government intends to award a single task order to the responsible Offeror whose quote represents the best value to the Government in accordance with FAR Subpart 16.505. “Best value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s evaluation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. Technical factors are listed in descending order of importance. All non-price factors (Factors 1, 2 and 3), when combined, are more important than the price factor (Factor 4). However, as the technical ratings and/or the merits of the non-price factors become closer or even, price may become more strongly considered and the deciding factor in the award decision.

Using the tradeoff evaluation process, the Government will evaluate each quote in accordance with the evaluation criteria. The Government anticipates selecting the best-suited contractor from initial responses, without engaging in exchanges with contractors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial quote should contain the Offeror’s best terms. After receipt of quotes, the Government will conduct an evaluation. However, during the evaluation process, the Government may reach out for clarification to resolve minor or clerical errors.

At any time prior to selection, including upon receipt of quotes, the Government may exclude a quote from further consideration for any material failure to follow instructions, including the omission of required information.

If the evaluation and selection process identify a best-suited Offeror (i.e., the apparent successful Offeror), the Government, at its sole discretion, may engage with only that Offeror to address any remaining issues and finalize a task order. These may include price and non-price issues or concerns. If the parties cannot successfully address any remaining issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to engage the next best-suited Offeror based on the original analysis and address any remaining issues or concerns with that Offeror. Once the Government has engaged the next best- suited Offeror, no further engagements with the previous Offeror will be entertained until after the task order has been awarded. This process will continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a task order is awarded. This does not constitute a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c) as this procurement is being conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 16.505.

Offerors are cautioned that the Government may not necessarily select the Offeror with lowest priced quote. In determining the best value for award, the Government is more concerned with obtaining a technically superior solution than with obtaining the lowest priced solution. The Government reserves the right to award to a higher priced Offeror for a more technically superior solution as set forth in the technical evaluation factors. As such, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the Offeror with the highest technically rated quote. As the ratings of the technical evaluation factors and/or the merits of the technical quotes become closer or even, price will become more important in the award decision.

- Base CLIN of 90 days -with an additional one (1) option period. The option(s) will be exercised and funded as needed.

ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATIONS:

To prevent any future issues all Offeror’s must certify in their proposal that they have:

A. Physical possession of exterior ballistic vest for all assigned Guards.

B. They understand that the waiver from the State of North Carolina is only for 30 days for Guards from out of state.

C. They understand that they will be responsible for all Housing for their Guards.

D. That all Security Guards must be W2 employees and not 1099 workers under North Carolina regulations.

E. That they have the Financial and Experience to manage this requirement under austere environment.