ATTACHMENT 5 EVALUATION CRITERIA W9127Q24R0020- 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. IAW FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items.

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 subfactors). 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 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 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 Vehicle Interdiction Course Content

Techncial Factor B: Advanced Commercial Vehicle Interdiction Couse Content

Technical Factor C: Offeror/Instructor Qualifications

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

Technical Factor A- Basic Commercial Vehicle Interdiction 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. 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 Subfactor A.1- Introduction to Vehicle Contraband

Technical Subfactor A.2- Pre-Search Objectives

Technical Subfactor A.3- Systematic Search Techniques Overview

Technical Subfactor A.4- The Common Concealment Options

Technical Subfactor A.5- Electronically Assessed Compartments

Technical Subfactor A.6- Searching the Vehicle

Technical Subfactor A.7- Searching the Rear Commercial Vehicle and Trailer

Technical Subfactor A.8- Searching the Bed Walls of Commercial Vehicle

Technical Subfactor A.9- Searching the Passenger Compartment of Commercial Vehicles

Technical Subfactor A.10- Searching the Rear Cab Wall of Commercial Vehicles

Technical Subfactor A.11- Searching the Quarter Panels of Commercial Vehicles and Commercial Trailers

Technical Subfactor A.12- Searching the Doors

Technical Subfactor A.13- Searching the Doors Posts and Sail Panels

Technical Subfactor A.14- Searching the Rocker Panels

Technical Subfactor A.15- Searching the Floor and Roof

Technical Subfactor A.16- Searching the Dash

Technical Subfactor A.17- Searching the Engine Compartment

Technical Subfactor A.18- Searching the Front Fenders

Technical Subfactor A.19- Searching the Firewall and Kick Panel Area

Technical Subfactor A.20- Searching the Windshield Wiper Cowling Area

Technical Subfactor A.21- Searching the Undercarriage

Technical Subfactor A.22- Searching the Fuel Tank

Technical Subfactor A.23- Searching the Tires

Technical Subfactor A.24- Searching Vehicle Contraband Searching Pitfalls

Technical Subfactor A.25- Special Considerations for Detecting Liquid Methamphetamine

Technical Subfactor A.26- Common Commercial Vehicle Concealment Methods

Technical Subfactor A.27- Common Bus Concealment Methods

Technical Subfactor A.28- Pre-Test and Post-Test

Technical Factor B Advanced Commercial Vehicle Interdiction 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. 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 Subfactor B.1- Review of Basic Seminar to include Industry Standards, Interrview of the CMV driver, and Identifying Criminal Organizations

Technical Subfactor B.2- Current Case Analysis with Video, Photographs, and Power Point Presentation

Technical Subfactor B.3- Understand and Demonstrate proper CMV Search Techniques (Including Hands on Practical)

Technical Subfactor B.4- Understand the Importance of Complete and Thorough Report Writing

Technical Subfactor B.5 – Real World Analysis of Commercial Motot Vehicles in Operation on highways, truck stops, weigh scales, etc. (Where jurisdictional authority exists, observation of live stops, Technical Subfactor B.6- Gaining other intelligence/networking with the National Seizure System (NSS) and the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC).

Technical Subfactor B.7- Pre-Test and Post-Test

Technical Factor C- 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 Subfactor C.1- The instructor(s) must be subject matter experts on commercial vehicle search techniques as demonstrated by training other government training institutions on this topic. Instructor(s) must have extensive experience in training law enforcement officers at all levels to include federal, state, and local agencies.

Technical Subfactor C.2- The contractor and their instructor(s) will have a background in and be currently engaged in training law enforcement officers in commercial vehicle contraband concealment techniques. Instructor must be an expert in the commercial vehicle industry.

Technical Subfactor C.3- Instructor(s) must have extensive full-time law enforcement experience and currently specialize in the field of commercial vehicle criminal/drug interdiction.

Technical Subfactor C.4- Instructor(s) with extensive law enforcement experience with the majority being in the field of commercial vehicle criminal/drug interdiction are highly sought.

Technical Sub-Factor C.5- Instructor(s) must have extensive practical experience in searching commercial motor vehicles where hidden contraband can be discovered.

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 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 D 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.

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), erros in submission, and the Total Evaluated Price as defined in Section D. Evaluation Approach of this Source Selection Plane (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 subfactor. 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 subfactors 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 subfactor.

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.

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-24-R-0020 instructions.

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. 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 Commercial Vehicle Interdiction Classes, Base Year (Period of Performance: 09/01/2024-08/31/2025), Quantity/Unit of Issue: 4 EACH Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLIN 0002- Technical Instructional Services for the Advanced Commercial Vehicle Interdiction Classes, Base Year (Period of Performance:

09/01/2024-08/31/2025) Quantity/Unit of Issue 2 Each Firm Fixed Price(FFP)

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 elementsnad subelements:

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.