Attachment C_Evaluation Criteria_20240927.docx

Attachment C Evaluation and Selection Criteria Construction Surveillance Technician (CST Services) Request for Proposal (RFP)

RFP- 19AQMM24Q0148

This award is made under FAR Part 16.5 procedures. DOS will evaluate the proposal considering strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks.

The Government does not intend on conducting exchanges during the evaluation phase; however, it reserves the right to do so. Offerors are urged to submit their best proposal in response to this solicitation. It is unlikely that the Government will allow offerors to revise their proposals. One award is anticipated to be made following the conclusion of proposal evaluations.

Following an evaluation, DOS may make one (1) award based on the proposal that is determined to provide the best value to DOS.

DOS reserves the right to make an award based on other than the lowest quoted price.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers in no particular order:

Compensation and Retention Plan Management Plan/Corporate Resources Past Performance Price

Technical and past performance, when combined, are more important than Price.

EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

VOLUME I - Technical Proposal Factor 1: Compensation and Retention Plan Factor 2: Management Plan/Key Personnel/Resumes Factor 3: Past Performance

Technical: Technical elements of the evaluation shall be based solely on information furnished by the vendor. The Government is not responsible for locating or securing any information, which is not identified in the offer.

Factor 1: Compensation Plan and Retention Plan The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Compensation and Retention Plan to assess its potential effectiveness in attracting, retaining, and motivating a highly qualified workforce. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s ability to successfully retain staff after hiring and completion of on-the-job training. This evaluation will consider the following elements:

1. Competitiveness of Compensation: The extent to which the proposed compensation package is competitive within the local market and industry standards.

2. Comprehensive Benefits Package: Explaining the breadth and depth of benefits offered through Attachment E – Summary of Employee Benefits, including but not limited to health care coverage (medical, dental, vision, prescription drug), insurance (short-term disability, long-term disability, life, accidental death and dismemberment), paid time off (holidays, personal time, vacation), retirement savings plans, and additional perks and incentives.

3. Retention Strategies: The effectiveness of proposed strategies to minimize turnover, particularly after completion of on-the-job training.

4. Talent Development: The approach to attracting and training suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives.

5. Supporting Data: The quality and relevance of data provided to substantiate the proposed compensation and retention strategies.

Factor 2: Management Plan/Key Personnel The Government will evaluate the Offeror's management approach and corporate resource capabilities based on the clarity, comprehensiveness, and effectiveness of their proposed strategy to meet the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). The Government will also evaluation the Offeror’s ability demonstrate a clear understanding of the contract requirements.

The evaluation will consider:

1. Staffing Plan: The qualifications and experience of key personnel and staff. Relevance of academic credentials and professional experience to the SOW requirements. Clarity and appropriateness of the staffing/organization chart. Adequacy of roles and responsibilities assigned to team members.

2. Quality Control Plan: The effectiveness of proposed quality monitoring and tracking methods. Utilization of required reports/records as defined in Section 3.6 of the SOW. Responsiveness and efficiency of processes for addressing problem areas, including: procedures for employee removal due to security violations, performance issues, or unethical conduct and timeliness and effectiveness of critical issue resolution.

3. Corporate Resources: The availability and relevance of corporate resources to support contract execution. Strategy for leveraging resources to ensure successful performance. Alignment of resources with contract requirements and potential challenges.

4. Overall Management Approach: The demonstrated understanding of contract requirements by completing the Attachment D- Cross-Reference Matrix. Comprehensiveness of the proposed management strategy. Effectiveness of resource allocation throughout the contract period. Potential risks and mitigation strategies.

RATINGS OF NON-PRICE FACTORS (EXCLUDING Factor 1 (see above for GO/NO GO explanation) and PAST PERFORMANCE) The Government will evaluate the non-price factors using an adjectival rating system. The Government will assign an adjective, as defined below, based on the offeror’s ability to support the Government’s non-price requirements.

Ratings of Non-Price Factors The following adjectival ratings represent a combined technical and risk rating.

Rating Description

Superior Proposal meets or exceeds all solicitation requirements of the RFP. Good probability of success with no degree of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Acceptable Proposal meets basic solicitation requirements and demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirements. Reasonable probability of success with low degree of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet all requirements, nor does it demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses. Some areas of concern may not have been fully addressed by offeror, leaving some ambiguities. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more significant deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal is un-awardable without being rewritten.

Factor 3: Past Performance The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability to perform the work described in the Statement of Work (SOW) based on their history of corporate performance on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity. The evaluation will consider:

1. Relevance of Experience: Similarity of past contracts to the current requirement in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Recency of experience (within the past three years from the RFP issue date). Specific aspects of past performance that demonstrate unique capabilities relevant to this RFP. Include but not limited to contract numbers, dollar values, and brief descriptions of the work performed. Highlight any specific aspects of past performance that demonstrate capabilities relevant to this RFP.

2. Quality of Performance: Assessment of the Offeror's performance on recent and relevant contracts. Feedback from provided references via Attachment F - Past Performance Questionnaire. Any recurring strengths or weaknesses identified across multiple references.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to use past performance information from sources other than those provided by the Offeror, including Government databases and publicly available information. Offerors are advised to ensure all past performance information is current, accurate, and relevant to demonstrating their ability to perform the requirements of this RFP.

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. Little Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

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. Some Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (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.

VOLUME II – PRICE

A price analysis shall be conducted based upon the data submitted by the offeror in order to determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.404-1(b).

Options The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if one or more line items are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

SBU - CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITIONS

SBU - CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITIONS

Page 1 of 2 9/27/24