Attachment 3- Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award W9127Q21R0007 (REV).doc.pdf

Attachment 3 – W9127Q-21-R-0007 Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award

EVALUATION CRITERIA and BASIS of AWARD W9127Q-21-R-0007 Narcotics Investigations, “Interview or

Interrogation” Instructional Services

Basis of 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 Factors 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 subfactors 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 subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical, Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Technical Factors: Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Technical subfactors are equally considered.

Technical Factor A: Narcotics Investigations, “Interview or Interrogation” Course Content:

Technical Sub-Factor A.1- Technical Sub-Factor A.1- Course should be designed to achieve the maximum student orientation to the fundamental duties and responsibilities of a narcotics investigator.

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 or equivalent method of evaluation.

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

Attachment 3 - W9127Q-21-R-0007

Technical Factor B: Narcotics Investigations, “Interview or Interrogation” Course Content:

Technical Sub-Factor B.1- Curriculum should also cover investigations of narco-terrorism and transnational organized crime (TOC) activities. The techniques learned in this course should be designed to disrupt the flow of precursor chemicals, materials and illicit finance activities that support illegal drug production.

Technical Sub-Factor B.2- This course shall include a pre-test and a post-test to assess students’ 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:

Technical Factor C: Offeror/Instructor Qualifications

Technical Sub-Factor C.1- The contractor and instructor(s) must have extensive prior full time narcotic drug enforcement experience in conducting investigations concerning basic narcotics and advanced narcotics investigations at the local, state or federal level.

Technical Sub-Factor C.2- The contractor must have extensive experience in the development, design and training of drug enforcement officers and be currently engaged in training drug enforcement officers on the subject matter of narcotics investigations in the civilian law enforcement environment which must be certified by Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).

Technical Sub-Factor C.3- The contractor must have extensive experience in the training of law enforcement and be currently engaged in training law enforcement officers on the subject matter of narcotics investigations in the civilian law enforcement environment.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a Firm Fixed Price. Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

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.

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 unsuccessfulperformance is low.

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

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

Yello w

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessfulperformance 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 solicitationrequires.

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 andmagnitude 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 solicitationrequires.

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 willsuccessfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, theGovernment 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 thefacto of past performance.

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, theGovernment 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 W9127Q21R0007 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.

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.