Attachment 3 Evaluation Criteria.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3 - EVALUATION CRITERIA

MS NG EMPLOYMENT OUTREACH SERVICES

W9127Q-22-R-0007 WORK FOR WARRIORS

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 1- 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 2 - 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 factors. An adjectival rating will be given to the relevancy sub-factor. Quality of Past Performance will not be given an adjectival rating but will be considered in the Performance Confidence Assessment. A Performance Confidence Assessment will be made based on all past performance information submitted. An adjectival rating will be made for the Performance Confidence assessment.

Subfactor 1: Recency and Relevancy Subfactor 2: Confidence

Factor 3 – 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 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

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

Acceptable

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

Marginal

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

Unacceptable

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 un-awardable.

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

Using the information in Technical Proposal, and the projects/contracts discussed and listed in the Past Performance, 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

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.

• Demonstrate the contractor’s method for employee dispute resolution.

• Recruitment plan to maintain a stable, effective, and skilled staff needed to perform this service

• The Staffing Plan is limited to 15 pages, exclusive of resumes, table of contents, tabs, and dividers.

Subfactor 3: Management Approach Plan

The Offeror’s Management Approach shall demonstrate how the Offeror will perform the requirements for Employment Outreach Services 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

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 2 – Past/Present Performance Rating

Past/Present 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 this Performance Work Statement.

The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consist of a “relevancy” rating (Table 2) and a “confidence” rating (Table 3). Although there are subfactors listed below, the “confidence” ratings will be at the factor level only. Stated differently, the subfactors will be considered, but they will not receive individual confidence ratings. The Past/Present Performance evaluation will consider such things as an Offeror's business practices, customer relationship, ability to successfully perform as proposed, and other considerations as described in Past/Present Performance Sub-factors, elements, and other considerations. Past/Present Performance includes current/on-going (present) performance. In assessing performance confidence, the evaluator may:

• evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the Offeror's references.

• use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources; from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), CPARS, or other databases.

• interview Program/Project Managers or Contracting Officers, or rely upon personal business experience with the Offeror.

• use the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Description Requirements described above; and, consider any information the Offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contract and the Offeror's corrective actions. The Government reserves the right to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

• The evaluation may take into account Past/Present Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. The evaluation will also consider information provided relative to corrective actions taken to resolve problems on past or existing contracts.

An Offeror with no relevant Past/Present Performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors provided the Offeror clearly states in the proposal that the information is provided about predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors is for the purposes of informing of the Offeror’s past performance. These ratings may not have the same weight as the ratings of the proposing company. The weight that will be afforded for this type of past performance is within the sole discretion of the Government. If such information is not applicable (i.e., the Offeror does not have a predecessor company, key personnel, or subcontractors with relevant experience), the offeror shall be evaluated as “Unknown Confidence” (Neutral).

In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror's past/present performance information and adverse past/present performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor clerical errors).

Currency, Trends and Relevancy: Evaluators will consider the performance information for currency and relevancy as well as trends in the performance as explained below.

“Current” means performance occurring within the last five (5) years for the period beginning five years prior to the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period.

“Trends” in performance will be considered and may include the following, but not limited to more current performance having greater weight than older performance; patterns or trends in performance issues relating to, but not limited to, types of projects, work, personnel, and similar elements; and whether performance show a pattern of improvement or decline over time.

In assessing “relevancy” of an offeror’s previous contracts, the Government may evaluate an offeror’s past performance for similarity of the requirements, methods, size, project scope, cost magnitude and complexity of work performed to those required for the proposed effort. The Government may also consider similarity of the client type (e.g., federal government) and/or the projects’ sustainability requirements). The location at which work was performed may also be considered. Relevancy weight will affect offeror’s overall Past Performance Confidence rating.

The more relevant the project is weighted, the greater confidence there will be in the past performance assessment as a predictor of future performance. Relevancy will affect an offeror’s overall Past Performance rating. The following apply to weighting relevancy considering all the elements listed above:

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.

The following ratings and related definitions will be used to define the performance confidence assessment. Based on the evaluation results, the evaluators will assign the Past Performance factor one of the ratings as defined below.

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 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 factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to 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.

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.

If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

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)).