Attachment 3- Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award RCTA Surveillance.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

W9127Q-21-R-0013

EVALUATION CRITERIA and BASIS OF AWARD

W9127Q-21-R-0013 SURVEILLANCE FOR DRUG ENFORCEMENT

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Price, and Past Performance. The Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factors (to include all sub-factors). Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. In terms of the relative importance of the factors, all non-priced factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price. The firms that represent the best value to the Government will be selected for award in accordance with FAR subpart 15.1 Source Selection Processes and Techniques.

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Technical Factor: Provide Surveillance for Drug Enforcement for up to 30 law enforcement officers per iteration. The technical sub-factors, each of equal importance relative to the others, are the following:

Technical Sub-factor A: Surveillance for Drug Enforcement

Technical Sub-factor B: Offeror/Instructor Qualifications

Technical Sub-factor A: Surveillance for Drug Enforcement Course Content: The Surveillance for Drug Enforcement course will cover the use of digital imagery equipment during static and mobile physical surveillance operations in both rural and urban environments. The course commences with a comprehensive review of physical surveillance on day one. The course introduces the use of digital imagery equipment on day two, introducing students to basic and advanced photography/ videography concepts allowing students to capture imagery during day/ night operations at distances up to 300 meters and beyond. During day three and four the course continues to build upon earlier concepts introducing stay behind systems, the use of off the shelf technology (drones, cell phones etc.) and developing methods for incorporating said technology into real world operations. The course extensively uses practical exercises to solidify an operational understanding of concepts that are taught.

• Gain basic understanding of various physical surveillance and counter surveillance techniques for both urban and rural operations

• Gain an in-depth understanding of how digital cameras (DSLR/ Mirrorless) work, allowing for manual photography under all meteorological conditions, during day and night operations.

• Develop ability to capture digital imagery from static and mobile platforms

• Develop ability to capture illegal acts through digital means

• Develop ability to capture operationally usable imagery at extended ranges (300 meters +)

• Use common video/ photography tools (phones, drones, home security cameras) to capture operational footage while blending in with the population

• Develop planning methodologies to successfully plan operations with significant “unknowns”

• Develop understanding of digital imagery limitations as they relate to identifying individuals/ acts under various conditions

Technical Sub-factor B: Offeror/Instructor Qualifications o The contractor and instructor(s) must be subject matter experts on the techniques and processes of Surveillance for Drug Enforcement. The contractor and instructor(s) must have extensive experience in real world surveillance operations and be currently engaged in training law enforcement officers and Department of Defense personnel in the techniques and process of capturing digital imagery for surveillance as it applies to Drug Enforcement investigations.

o The contractor must have extensive experience in the design, development and delivery of physical and digital surveillance courses utilized while conducting investigations into illicit activities. The contractor must present the latest technology available as it applies to surveillance operations and digital imagery for drug enforcement. Contractor must update course material as technology advances.

Factor 2: Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed Price contract awarded for a 12-month base period with four (4) option periods, also 12-months each. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for each offerors’ price proposal. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated with respect to the following: its compliance with the solicitation requirements, unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g), errors in submission, and the Total Evaluated Price as defined in Section D of this Source Selection Plan (SSP).

Factor 3: Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. Recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance will be the past performance sub-factors.

An adjectival rating will be given to the relevancy sub-factor. Quality of Past Performance will not be give an adjectival rating but will be considered in the Performance Confidence Assessment. The Performance Confidence Assessment will be made based on all past performance information submitted. An adjectival rating will be made for the Performance Confidence assessment. See Section D. Evaluation Approach of this Source Selection Plan (SSP) for all the ratings method used.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Board (SSB).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

The Technical Factor A: Writing Drug Search Warrants Course Content is divided into the following subfactors:

This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Course Content for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall Course Content could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

Technical Sub-Factor A.1- The Writing Drug Search Warrant course focuses on the constitutional requirements and the fundamentals of obtaining a search warrant; the purpose of the course is to assist the officer in developing the elements of probable cause;articulating such facts in written form and understanding the procedures in executing the search warrants. Topics from a simple drug warrant to transnational criminal organizationdismantling will be discussed.

Technical Sub-Factor A.2- Course must include a pre-test and post-test to evaluate the level of overall class experience, which may be a written pre-test for immediate grading, or electronic classroom response system for immediate feedback and evaluation.

Technical Sub-Factor A.3- Course must include a systematic testing method for providing interaction, feedback to students, checks for learning, and evaluating effectiveness of instruction such as daily electronic classroom response system orequivalent method of evaluation.

Technical Sub-Factor A.4- This course shall must cover the following topics (learning objectives) at a minimum:

• Purpose of a Search Warrant

• Basis for the affidavit

• Probable Cause

• Contents of the warrant

• Places to be searched

• Person to be searched

• Property to be seized

• Types of search warrants

• Drugs

• Property

• DNA in Drug Cases

• Paper work

• Bank records

• Special Master for Attorney or Doctor Office

• Sneak and peek warrants

• Knock and notice requirements

• Filing a return with the court

• Sealing an affidavit

• Suppression hearings

• When warrants are not required

Technical Factor B: Post Seizure Investigations Course Content

Technical Sub-Factor B.1- The Post Seizure Investigations course teaches methods to investigate and determine the origination and destination of drugs and drug currency following a seizure. It is designed to instruct the officer how to continue the investigation, interview suspects and co-conspirators and writing and applying for drug search warrants based on initial investigations.

Technical Sub-Factor B.2- This course shall include a pre-test and a post-test to assessstudents’ understanding and to ensure all learning objectives were met.

Technical Sub-Factor B.3- This course must cover the following topics (learning objectives) at a minimum:

• Investigate source and destination of seizure

• Writing and applying for drug search warrants

• Expanding investigations

• Disrupting trafficking organizations

• Interviewing defendants and co-conspirators

Technical Factor C: Offeror/Instructor Qualifications

Technical Sub-Factor C.1- The contractor and instructor(s) must have extensive full-time law enforcement experience in the design, development, and delivery of writing drug search warrants courses to law enforcement personnel at the local, state or federal level.

Technical Sub-Factor C.2- The contractor must have extensive experience in the design,development and delivery of Writing Drug Search Warrant and Post Seizure Investigation courses utilized while conducting drug investigations which must be certified under Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST).

Technical Sub-Factor C.3- Instructors must have a comprehensive understanding of thelegal issues involved with Writing Drug Search Warrants, and in applicable seizure lawspost search warrant service, and experience in training civilian law enforcement in the writing of drug search warrants to include the application of laws governing search warrants.

Technical Sub-Factor C.3- The contractor must have extensive experience in thetraining of law enforcement and be currently engaged in training law enforcementofficers on the subject matter of writing drug search warrants in the civilian law enforcement environment.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK

RATINGS

Color Rating Descriptio n Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purpl e

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yello w

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptabl e

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachment 4B.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform significant percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the

NAICS 611699.

Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the offeror in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

Recency, relevancy, and quality.

RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror.

Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The

Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Cost/Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

The results of the cost realism evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. As part of the realism analysis, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed, the evaluated becomes the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

c. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost/Price proposal will evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Attachment 2- Proposal Submission Requirements W9127Q21R0013 and related submission form -2A

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

3) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

4) Business Systems: The Government will verify the adequacy of the Offeror’s business systems.

Attachment 3 – W9127Q-21-R-0013 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award

5) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed fixed-price for all CLIN prices including option periods/years.

6) FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services is included in the RFP. However, it will not be in consideration of price evaluation in that it, by regulation is automatically priced one-half of the last option period/year cost. Until such action is necessary, no CLIN is evident to Extend Services at this time.

Note the Clause will be in effect for this contract award.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), it is the government’s intent NOT to have discussions for this requirement.