Attachment 3 - Eval Factors Response Instruct and Eval Procedures.pdf

RFQ# 70FA2021Q00000015

Attachment 3

Contents Volume I – Technical Response Evaluation Factor – Work Plan

Instructions and Evaluation

Staffing Plan / Table EXAMPLE ONLY Template

Ratings & Definition

Volume I – Technical Response Evaluation Factor – Past Performance

Instructions and Evaluation

Ratings & Definition

Volume II – Business and Pricing Response Evaluation Factor – Price

Volume I – Technical Response Evaluation Factor – Work Plan

Instructions and Evaluation

INSTRUCTIONS EVALUATION

The Offeror shall provide a work plan demonstrating how PWS requirements and tasks will be successfully performed.

▪ The work plan shall include an incoming transition strategy including how the Offeror plans to ensure a fully staffed seamless continuity of services by the effective date of the contract e.g. are incumbent personnel planned to be retained and how?

▪ The work plan shall include a staffing plan / table to include Position Title and/or SCLS Classification (as applicable) with a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) count mapped to PWS task to the extent that the Government can clearly evaluate who is intended to perform what task and the amount of effort entailed for performance thereof (reference example template in this document…Offeror may expand upon.) The work plan shall include a narrative supporting the basis for the position and effort allocation reflected in this staffing plan / table.

▪ The work plan shall include how quality control will be conducted and maintained to ensure successful performance.

▪ The work plan shall include the resume(s) for position(s) outlined as Key Personnel in this RFQ.

The response to this evaluation factor shall not exceed ten

(10) pages [excludes KP resume(s)].

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Work Plan to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirement and represents a viable approach for successful performance the work.

Staffing Plan / Table EXAMPLE ONLY Template

Position FTE PWS Task vs. Position Effort

Total 1 2 3 4 5 6

Title including SCLS Classification of Position 1

1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - 0.2 1

Title including SCLS Classification of Position 2

0.5 - - 0.25 - - 0.25 0.5

Ratings & Definition

Rating Definition

High Confidence

The Government has high confidence that the vendor 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 some confidence that the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence

The Government has low confidence that the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Volume I – Technical Response Evaluation Factor – Past Performance

Instructions and Evaluation

INSTRUCTIONS EVALUATION

The Offeror shall provide past performance reference of prior, recent (within the last three years), and relevant experience for the same or similar services as required under this RFQ via submission of a copy of the most recent fully completed CPARS/PPIRS with their response. If referenced work is a non-Federal Government contract or it is Federal Government contract work but no CPARS/PPIRS record exists, then a maximum three (3) page write-up containing all applicable info from a CPARS/PPIRS record shall be submitted for each effort and signed by an appropriate PoC such as Project PoC, Primary PoC, Gov. PoC, etc. from that effort. For write-ups, the current contact info for this signatory to include name, title, phone, and email shall also be provided as part of any past performance submission. Offerors are not to submit a write-up if a fully completed CPARS/PPIRS record exists for the referenced work i.e. the above instructions instruct Offerors to submit that CPARS/PPIRS record.

For each identified effort, Offerors may provide information on problems encountered and corrective actions taken (1 page limit for each effort).

Offerors shall submit no more than two (2) past performance references i.e. projects. If subcontracting is proposed, then one (1) of the two (2) referenced projects must be for the Prime Contractor. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, then at least one (1) of the past performance references i.e. projects shall be from the controlling/majority/managing partner/venturer.

The Government will evaluate the relevant past performance of the Offeror to determine if the two (2) projects are similar in size, scope and complexity performed to the immediate requirement and were performed in the last three (3) years.

In accordance with FAR 13.106- 2(b)(3), the Government reserves the right to utilize past performance information other than the information submitted with the quotations received in conducting the evaluation.

Ratings & Definition

Rating Definition

High The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the Government can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with very low risk.

Medium The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the Government may expect highly satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with minimal risk.

Poor

The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the Government may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Offeror’s past performance record reflects minimal prior experience and suggests some risk.

Neutral The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests no prior experience and suggests that the Government may expect less than satisfactory

Rating Definition performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Offeror’s performance record presents a high degree of risk.

Volume II – Business and Pricing Response Evaluation Factor – Price

INSTRUCTIONS EVALUATION

Offerors shall submit pricing information consistent with the content, structure, and organization outlined in the Summary and Detailed tabs within Attachment 5 - RFQ Response Pricing Templates.

Due to this requirement being subject to Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS | FAR Subpart 22.10), shortly after award the awardee shall submit reformatted pricing consistent with the Reformatted tab in Attachment 4. This reformatted pricing will not change the price of the award. Rather, its sole purpose is transparency for the identification of permissible increases associated with potential future price adjustments as a result of applicable changes and revisions to the Wage Determination applicable to this requirement in accordance with FAR 52.222-43 as included in the solicitation / contract.

Price reasonableness is anticipated to be based on competitive offers, which the Government will determine based on price analysis and its review for compliance per solicitation instructions as well as accuracy and completeness. Additionally, price will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

Discrepancies, inconsistencies, or lack of explanations in these respects may result in the Government being unable to determine the proposed price as fair and reasonable.