Attachment 3 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award RCTA Warrant Service Operator .pdf

Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award W9127Q-21-R-0012 Search/Arrest Warrant Service Operator I and II

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.

B. 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.

Factor 1 : Technical Factor: Provide Search/Arrest Warrant Service Operator I and II

Courses 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: Search/Arrest Warrant Service Operator I Course Content

Technical Sub-factor B: Search/Arrest Warrant Service Operator II Course Content

Technical Sub-factor C: Offeror/Instructor Qualifications

Technical Sub-factor A: Search/Arrest Warrant Service Operator I Course Content:

The Search / Arrest Warrant Service Operator Level I course is designed to address the inherent dangers and challenges of the high risk entry mission. This course concentrates on the proven tactics and techniques utilized by the most successful and progressive units in the world today. Designed on the principles of initiative based techniques and concentration is placed on learned principles and fundamentals reinforced by continuous practical exercises and force on force application that stress the most important aspects of the mission.

content shall at minimum contain the following:

This course shall include a pre-test and a post-test to assess students’ understanding and to ensure all learning objectives were met.

• Current warrant protocols

• Low versus high risk entry considerations

• Target considerations

• Actions at entry point

• Safety considerations

• Approach

• Immediate action drills

• 2, 3,4 man entries

• Center and corner fed doors

• Proper stacking and positioning

• Verbiage considerations

• Hallway concepts and differences

• Angle considerations

• Stairwell concepts and differences

• Slow vs Dynamic techniques

• Diversionary devices

• Breaching considerations

• Window entry concepts

• Call out procedures

• Perimeter considerations

• Downed officer

• Mission planning

Technical Sub-factor B: Search/Arrest Warrant Service Operator II Course Content:

The Search / Arrest Warrant Service Operator Level II course is designed as a 40 hour progression from the Search / Arrest Warrant Service Operator Level I course with an increased emphasis on the dynamic aspects of the high risk warrant entry missions to include buy and bust operations and rescue applications for undercover operatives and down operators. The tactics and techniques stressed in this course are utilized by the most successful tactical entry teams in the world today. Skill development and fundamentals are reinforced by live fire entry practical exercises and force on force protocols that stress the most important aspects of the mission and include instructor led explosive entry application.

This course shall include a pre-test and a post-test to assess students’ understanding and to ensure all learning objectives were met.

• This course must cover the following topics (learning objectives) at a minimum:

• Current warrant protocols

• Low versus high risk entry considerations

• Target considerations

• Actions at entry point

• Safety considerations

• Approach

• Immediate action drills

• 2,3,4 man entries

• Shoot/don’t shoot simunition on paper targets

• Proper stacking and positioning

• Verbiage considerations

• Hallway concepts and differences

• Angle considerations

• Stairwell concepts and differences

• Slow vs Dynamic techniques

• Diversionary devices

• Breaching considerations

• Breaching methodology

• Window entry concepts

• Call out procedures

• Perimeter considerations

• Downed officer

• Mission planning

Technical Sub-factor C: Offeror/Instructor Qualifications

• The contractor and instructor(s) must be subject matter experts on the techniques and processes of narcotic warrants operations. The contractor and instructor(s) must be currently engaged in training law enforcement officers in the techniques and process of executing narcotic search warrants. The contractor must be an expert in the tactical law enforcement arena and have extensive experience in executing/serving drug search warrants.

• The contractor must have extensive experience in the design, development and delivery of narcotic warrant operations courses which must be certified under

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 W9127Q21R0012 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- Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award W9127Q-21-R-0012

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 og 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.

Recency, relevancy, and quality.