ATTACHMENT 5 EVALUATION CRITERIA final.pdf

ATTACHMENT 5-EVALUATION CRITERIA

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, 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.

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: The Technical factors are the following:

Technical Factor A: Basic Commercial Interview and Interrogation Course Content

Technical Factor B: Advanced Interview and Interrogation Couse Content

Technical Factor C: Detecting Danger Course Content

Technical Factor D: Offeror/Instructor Qualifications

Each factor is further subdivided into sub-factor with description and organization of each below:

Technical Factor A- Basic Interview and Interrogation Course Content- Course content will be evaluated based on inclusion of required course topics and the ability to achieve the objectives outlined within the PWS. The part of this volume shall include Course Overview and Performance Objectives, Course Agenda (broken down by day and hour), a breakdown of the curriculum, Slide Sets of PowerPoint, with presentation order that corresponds with the Course Agenda, Videos (if applicable), list of practical exercises, a copy of the pre-test and post-test, copy of the student handbook with reference material, materials and equipment provided by the contractor, and materials/equipment students must provide to participate in the course. Failure to submit the course content information based on the technical sub-factors below, as required by the solicitation, will result in a negative technical rating for this factor.

Technical Sub-factor A.1- Introduction to the topic of Interview and Interrogation specifically outlining the differences in the two

Technical Sub-factor A.2- Ways in which interviews/interrogation in narcotic related investigations differ from those in general policing

Technical Sub-factor A.3- Assessment and utilization of personality typology to assist in the information gathering process

Technical Sub-factor A.4- Identification of mental defenses and successful means of overcoming them as they are observed from suspects, victims, or witnesses

Technical Sub-factor A.5- The general considerations of gathering information to include the basic rules of detecting deception in others

Technical Sub-factor A.6- Provide a systematic Interviewing process for interviewing and a separate one for the Interrogation process

Technical Sub-factor A.7- Formulation and successful use of different question types

Technical Sub-factor A.8- Introduction to the key elements of verbal communication building on previous lessons of detecting deception and deception clues

Technical Sub-factor A.9- Introduction to non-verbal communication and the evaluation and successful use of body language in interaction with others

Technical Sub-factor A.10- Body language of the face, hands and torso as it relates to gestures observed or utilized in the interview and interrogation forum

Technical Sub-factor A.11- Subconscious Communication eye movement for rapport building and deception detection

Technical Sub-factor A.12- Utilizing subconscious awareness for theme building

Technical Factor B Advanced Interview and Interrogation Course Content. Course content will be evaluated based on inclusion of required course topics and the ability to achieve the objectives outlined within the PWS. The part of this volume shall include Course Overview and Performance Objectives, Course Agenda (broken down by day and hour), a breakdown of the curriculum, Slide Sets of PowerPoint, with presentation order that corresponds with the Course Agenda, Videos (if applicable), list of practical exercises, a copy of the pre-test and post-test, copy of the student handbook with reference material, materials and equipment provided by the contractor, and materials/equipment students must provide to participate in the course. Failure to submit the course content information based on the technical sub-factors below, as required by the solicitation, will result in a negative technical rating for this factor.

Technical Sub-factor B.1- Provide a minimum 5-day, 40 hour course for Advanced Interview and Interrogation for up to 50 Military personnel, federal, state, and local agencies. Basic Interview and Interrogation is a required prerequisite.

Technical Sub-factor B.2- This course builds upon the techniques and approaches presented in the Basic Course which educated the student on the use of subconscious communication for gathering information in the field of criminal justice with specific emphasis placed on those investigations involving narcotics and the possession and distribution of illegal drugs and related activities.

Technical Sub-factor B.3- Students should have been actively involved in the use of the techniques and approaches presented in the basic presentation having used the material in actual contact with others.

Technical Sub-factor B.4- This course is intended for students who are willing to actively participate in scenarios performed throughout the program.

Technical Sub-factor B.5 – Techniques and approaches presented in the basic course.

Technical Sub-factor B.6- Active participation in an advanced Interviewing and interrogation practical exercises.

Technical Sub-factor B.7- Critique and evaluate fellow students during exercises.

Technical Sub-factor B.8- Build upon knowledge in the Basic Interview and Interrogation class.

Technical Sub-factor B.9- An eight hour block of instruction on Legal Issues of

Interview and Interrogation is also included.

Technical Factor C Detecting Danger Course Content. Course content will be evaluated based on inclusion of required course topics and the ability to achieve the objectives outlined within the PWS. The part of this volume shall include Course Overview and Performance Objectives, Course Agenda (broken down by day and hour), a breakdown of the curriculum, Slide Sets of PowerPoint, with presentation order that corresponds with the Course Agenda, Videos (if applicable), list of practical exercises, a copy of the pre-test and post-test, copy of the student handbook with reference material, materials and equipment provided by the contractor, and materials/equipment students must provide to participate in the course. Failure to submit the course content information based on the technical sub-factors below, as required by the solicitation, will result in a negative technical rating for this factor.

Technical Sub-factor C.1- The Detecting Danger Course should be designed as an eight (8) hour block of instruction as an abbreviated version of the Interview and Interrogation course to be utilized in conferences or seminars, etc.

Technical Sub-factor C.2- Current (within 10 years) examples of the techniques being taught being utilized.

Technical Sub-factor C.3- Current video examples of an interview/interrogation

Technical Sub-factor C.4- Current case examples

Technical Factor D- Offeror/Instructor Qualifications Failure to submit offeror/instructor qualification based on the sub-factors below, and as stated in the PWS, will result in a negative technical rating for this factor.

Technical Sub-factor D.1- Offeror submitting quotes/proposals must have prior experience in the design, development, and delivery of law enforcement courses to uniformed patrol officers or other drug enforcement personnel at the local, state, or federal level. Vendors who have developed and delivered Interview and Interrogation course of at least 40-hours in length are preferred.

Technical Sub-factor D.2- Instructors must have extensive experience in the training of drug enforcement officers, more specifically; they should be currently engaged in training drug enforcement officers on the subject of Interview and Interrogation. Offerors whose instructors have extensive experience in instructing/training drug enforcement officers in all aspects of Interview and Interrogation are preferred.

Technical Sub-factor D.3- Instructors that have a Master’s degree in Behavioral Sciences with a Ph.D. (Doctorate) being preferred.

Technical Sub-factor D.4- Instructor(s) must prove that previous POST certification has been or can be obtained on this course through three or more states.

Technical Sub-factor D.5- Instructor(s) must have extensive experience as police/sheriff investigator in the use of the techniques being taught.

Technical Sub-factor D.6- Instructor(s) that have been published on the topic in a recognized police or psychological journal are preferred.

Technical Sub-factor D.7-Instructor(s) must be able to demonstrate original research in the field.

Each technical factor is of equal importance.

Each technical sub-factor within each factor is of equal importance.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical sub-factor 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 D of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed Price contract awarded for a 12-month base period with two option periods, also 12-month each. 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 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, unbalance pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g), errors in submission, and the Total Evaluated Price as defined in Section D. Evaluation Approach 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 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. 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. See Section D. Evaluation Approach of this Source Selection Plan (SSP) for all the ratings method used.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

a. 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.

b. 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.

2. Technical Factors: 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 for each technical sub-factor.

3. Price Factor. 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 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.

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.

b. Overall Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Price proposal will evaluated for the following:

Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation W9127Q-20-R-0020 instructions.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

Red 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 unawardable.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall 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)).

Errors: The Offeror’s 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.

Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed price for each CLIN. Each CLIN for technical instructional services will be a firm fixed price CLIN. Each CLIN for Contracting Manpower Reporting will be either Not Separately Priced “NSP”, for a proposed price of $0.00, or may be priced as a firm fixed price for the amount that the contractor proposes the Contracting Manpower Reporting to be. The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed price for each CLIN based on the contract CLIN structure below.

CLIN 0001- Technical Instructional Service for the Basic Interview and Interrogation Classes, Base Year (Period of Performance: 09/25/2020-09/24/2021), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 12 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 0002- Technical Instructional Services for the Advanced Interview and Interrogation Classes, Base Year (Period of Performance: 09/25/2020-09/24/2021), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 2 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 0003- Technical Instructional Services for Detecting Danger Classes, Base Year (Period of Performance: 09/25/2020-09/24/2021), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 5 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 0004- Contracting Manpower Report for services performed for the Base Year May be priced or Not Separately Priced (NSP)

CLIN 1001- Technical Instructional Services for Basic Interview and Interrogation Classes, Option Year One (1) (Period of Performance: 09/25/2021-09/24/2022), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 15 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 1002- Technical Instructional Services for the Advanced Interview and Interrogation Classes, Option Year One (1) (Period of Performance: 09/25/2021- 09/24/2022), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 5 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 1003- Technical Instructional Services for Detecting Danger Classes, Option Year

One (1) (Period of Performance: 09/25/2021-09/24/2022), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 5 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 1004- Contacting Manpower Reporting for services performed during Option Year One May be priced or Not Separately Priced (NSP)

CLIN 2001- Technical Instructional Services for Basic Interview and Interrogation Classes, Option Year Two (2) (Period of Performance: 09/25/2022-09/24/2023), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 12 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 2002- Technical Instructional Services for the Advanced Interview and Interrogation Classes, Option Year Two (2) (Period of Performance: 09/25/2022- 09/24/2023), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 5 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 2003- Technical Instructional Services for Detecting Danger Classes, Option Year Two (2) (Period of Performance: 09/25/2022-09/24/2023), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 5 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 2004- Contracting Manpower Reporting for services performed during Option Year Two May be priced or Not Separately Priced (NSP)

CLIN 3001- Technical Instructional Services for the Basic Interview and Interrogation Classes, Option Year Three (3) (Period of Performance: 09/25/2023-09/24/2024), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 15 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 3002- Technical Instructional Services for the Advanced Interview and Interrogation Classes, Option Year Three (3) (Period of Performance: 09/25/2023- 09/24/2024), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 5 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 3003- Technical Instructional Services for Detecting Danger Classes, Option Year Three (3) (Period of Performance: 09/25/2023-09/24/2024), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 5 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 3004- Contracting Manpower Reporting for services performed during Option Year Three May be priced or Not Separately Priced (NSP)

4. 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.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’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 zero 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.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor 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.

d. 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.

i. 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.

ii. 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.

iii. 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. The SSEB will review all past performance information collected to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be made. The Quality of Services/Training will consider the following elements and sub-elements:

Course Design and Development

i. Course Curriculum/Agenda

ii. Quality of Instruction

iii. Course Materials/Handouts

iv. Course Benefit in Workplace

Scheduling

i. Adherence to Schedule

ii. Flexibility in Scheduling

Business Relations

i. Business/Contracting Relations

ii. Problem Resolution

iii. Process Improvement

iv. Lesson Learned Incorporation

v. Cooperative Behavior

vi. Commitment to Customer Satisfaction

vii. Responsiveness

Management of Key Personnel

i. Technical Knowledge in Course Subject Matter to include thoroughness, accuracy, and overall assement of contractor.

iv. 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.

E. DISCUSSIONS

GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), it is the governments intention for discussions not to take place.