Attachment 3 Evaluation Criteria.- Media Services.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3 - EVALUATION CRITERIA

W9127Q-23-R-0002 Media Services

A. 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, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical Factors and Past Performance Factor, when combined, will be significantly more important than cost or 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. Moreover, in terms of relative importance of the subfactors, all subfactors are of equal importance. The firm that represents 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

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 Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all the Offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Proposals shall be clear, concise and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements.

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor - Technical: Subfactors are of equal importance and be rated accordingly:

Subfactor 1: Experience and Capabilities Subfactor 2: Organizational Chart and Key Personnel Subfactor 3: Management Approach Subfactor 4: Quality Control Plan

Factor – Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed Price contract awarded for a 12-month base period. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors’ 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, including options will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated with respect to the following: its compliance with the solicitation requirements, unbalance pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g), errors in submission, and the Total Evaluated Price as defined in Section C. Evaluation Approach detailed below.

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

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

1. 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.

2. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which 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 task and technical requirements within the required schedule.

Factor 1 - Technical Rating

The Technical Rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. This is a combined rating that includes risk associated with the technical approach in a single rating. See Table 1 for rating description. Ratings will be assigned at the subfactor level as well as an overall factor level rating. Based on evaluation results, the Government will assign a technical rating for each of the four (4) subfactors as well as the overall technical proposal. The subfactors, 1-4, will be rated equally. An offer which fails to provide information in any of the specified areas may be deemed incomplete and eliminated from the competition and ineligible for further consideration for award.

TABLE 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements and determine to what degree their technical and administrative capabilities, proposed organization and management plan are adequate to meet contract requirements.

Subfactor 1: Experience and Capabilities Proposal (NTE 20 Pages)

Using the information in Technical Proposal, and the projects/contracts discussed and previous projects, the Government will evaluate the extent of related experience, and determine to what degree the Offeror has the experience and capability to manage a project comparable to the work requirements of this solicitation.

To be considered adequate, the Experience and Capability proposal must address the full spectrum of activities involved in the management of a resulting contract in a manner that gives the Government confidence that the Offeror understands all requirements. Accordingly, higher ratings can be achieved by Offerors whose projects more closely resemble the scope, size, and complexity of this solicitation’s requirements. The Experience and Capability Proposal is limited to 20 pages, exclusive of table of contents, tabs, and dividers.

Subfactor 2: Organizational Chart and Key Personnel (NTE 10 pages)

Staffing Plan should clearly identify the labor mix and quantities by major task and location, identify the replacement strategy, backup policy, retention policy and any other information pertinent to the execution of this contract. This will be used by the Government to have a sound understanding of the Offeror’s overall technical and management approach to ensure the Offeror has proposed adequate qualified personnel in appropriate labor categories to satisfy all PWS requirements. At a minimum, the plan and approach shall address the following areas:

Identify the contractor’s hierarchy of all personnel providing services under the proposed contract.

Identify the labor categories and intended personnel for this position, including resumes.

Key personnel resumes that are complete and demonstrate appropriate experience, education, and certifications. Signed letters of commitments should be included for Personnel if not currently on board. Resumes shall not exceed two (2) pages each, in excess of the limit will not be evaluated.

Key personnel would be project manager and other as stated in PWS.

The Staffing Plan is limited to 10 pages, exclusive of resumes, table of contents, tabs, and dividers.

Subfactor 3: Management Approach Plan (NTE 10 pages)

The Offeror’s Management Approach shall demonstrate how the Offeror will perform the requirements for this requirement and clearly identify the labor mix, significant tasks, location, and challenges related to this project. It should also address how the contractor will communicate with government personnel and maintain reporting requirements. The proposed Management Plan will be used by the Government to have a sound understanding of the Offeror’s overall technical and management approach to ensure the Offeror has proposed adequate qualified personnel in appropriate labor categories to satisfy the PWS requirements.

The Management Plan is limited to 10 pages, table of contents, tabs, and dividers.

Subfactor 4: Quality Control/Assurance Plan (NTE 5 Pages)

This proposal narrative should demonstrate that the quality control, with lines of authority, are adequate to meet the contract’s requirements and provide the government confidence of the Offeror’s ability to successfully manage technical aspects of this requirement. This plan must include how the Government should ensure that the contractor has performed in accordance with the performance standards. It defines how the performance standards will be applied, the frequency of surveillance, and the minimum acceptable quality level(s) and/or defect rate(s).

Though a full QC Plan is not required for this project, this narrative should include key Quality Control personnel for this project. The proposed Quality Control Plan should also provide a detailed explanation of how quality issues are addressed on similar requirements, such as staff meetings, reviews, correction of non-compliant work, and how the Offeror intends to ensure the remedy of deficient quality issues.

The Quality Assurance Plan is limited to five (5) pages, exclusive of resumes, table of contents, tabs, and dividers.

Factor 3 – Cost/Price Factor.

This contract shall be a firm fixed price contract. Price is not rated. The purpose of the price/cost evaluation is to determine whether an offeror's proposed prices/costs for the project are determined to be fair and reasonable in comparison to the competition, the current market conditions and/or recent prices for the same or similar requirements. Reasonableness of an offeror's proposal is evaluated through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1) and (4).

The RFP requires firm fixed prices for the individual contract line items. The Government will use a price reasonableness approach to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in”, or unbalanced pricing between CLINS or Options, is not occurring.

The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of a “buy-in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

The Government reserves the right to obtain additional information concerning the price (cost) as necessary to obtain a better understanding of the price proposed. No proposal revisions will be allowed under these conditions. Request for such information is for clarification purposes only. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions. If a minor clerical error has occurred, the Offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the "clarifications" process. The Contracting Officer in his/her sole discretion may later determine discussions to be necessary or appropriate.

In the event the Government does not award a contract pursuant to this solicitation within 90 calendar days after receipt of proposals and award will be made without discussions, the following will apply: The Government reserves the right to allow offerors to make an adjustment in their price proposals to accommodate cost changes caused by fluctuating market conditions.

The Contracting Officer will notify Offerors, normally by electronic mail (email), of a common closing date for receipt of the adjusted price proposals. No additional proposal revisions will be allowed under these conditions. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions.

C. DISCUSSIONS

GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a), it is the government’s intent to make award without discussions.

FAR 15.306 - Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals. Clarifications and award without discussions. Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Award may be made without discussions if the solicitation states that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. If the solicitation contains such a notice and the Government determines it is necessary to conduct discussions, the rationale for doing so shall be documented in the contract file (see the provision at 52.215-1) (10 U.S.C.2305(b)(4)(A)(ii) and 41 U.S.C. 3703(a)(2)). Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals to resolve minor or clerical errors.