Attachment J.7- Section M- Phase II Evaluation Factors for Award 03062020.pdf

Attachment J.7

Request for Proposals (RFP) No: 72061120R00005

USAID Maintained Epidemic Control of HIV (MECH) Activity

ATTACHMENT J.7

SECTION M – PHASE II EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 PHASE II GENERAL INFORMATION

a) The Government may award a Contract without discussions with Offerors in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, Offerors are to submit their best technical and cost proposals with their initial submissions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines it to be necessary.

b) The Government intends to evaluate Offerors in accordance with Section M –

PHASE II EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD of this RFP and make Contract award to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value to the U.S.

Government. “Best value” is defined as the offer that results in the most advantageous solution for the Government, in consideration of technical, cost, and other factors.

c) The submitted technical information will be evaluated by a technical evaluation committee using the technical criteria shown below. The evaluation committee may include industry experts who are not employees of the Federal Government. When evaluating the competing Offerors, the Government will consider the written qualifications/capability information provided by the Offerors, and any other information obtained by the

Government through its own research.

M.2 PHASE II TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

The criteria listed below are presented by major category, so that Offerors will know which areas require emphasis in the preparation of information. Offerors will note that these criteria serve as the standard against which all technical information will be evaluated, and serve to identify the significant matters which Offerors will address.

M.2.1 Phase II Rating Methodology

(a) A “Confidence” rating methodology will be used to evaluate all responsive technical proposals received under this solicitation. The Government will assess its level of confidence that the contractor will successfully perform all requirements in regards to the relevant evaluation factors assessed at Phase II. The evaluation factors will measure the

Government’s confidence that the offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract.

(b) USAID will be utilizing a Confidence Rating system to evaluate Phase I1 proposals.

Confidence Rating Description

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract.

(c) Non-Business/Cost Factors will be rated in the order of importance as indicated in the table below. However, all non-business/cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

M.2.2 Phase II Evaluation Criteria

Each offeror will be evaluated based on the following factors:

PHASE FACTOR FACTOR NAME RELATIVE ORDER OF

IMPORTANCE

P H

A S

E I

I

Factor 2 Management Approach

Factor 2, 3 and 4 are of equal importance but less important than Factor 1

Factor 3 Institutional Capacity

Factor 4

Contractor

Performance

Information

M.2.3 Factors for Phase II Evaluation

M.2.3(a) FACTOR 2 – Management Approach

[See Section L.5.2(a)]

Proposals will be evaluated on the extent to which:

• The offeror’s proposed staff and management plan will effectively and efficiently accomplish the requirements in the PBWS.

• The adequacy of the types and number of personnel, rationale for the organizational structure and the portion of work to be performed by each entity, along with proposed lines of supervision and communication both internally and externally, to ensure effective and timely execution of the PBWS.

• The proposed key personnel positions and job descriptions will support effective implementation of the technical approach/PBWS.

M.2.3(b) Factor 3 – Institutional Capacity

[See Section L.5.2(b)]

Proposals will be evaluated to the extent to which:

• The Offeror (and subs) demonstrates institutional ability and experience in the development of effective partnerships with governmental entities, donors, organizational sub-partners, and other stakeholders to facilitate the design and implementation of effective Activity interventions.

• The Offeror (and subs) demonstrates institutional experience in designing, managing, implementing, and evaluating public health programs of similar size, scale, duration, nature, and complexity to improve health outcomes.

M.2.3(c) FACTOR 4 – Contractor Past Performance Information

[See Section L.5.2(c)]

(1) Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision. USAID may use performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the offeror/subcontractor. USAID will utilize existing databases of contractor performance information and solicit additional information from other sources if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing databases to be insufficient for evaluating an offeror’s performance.

(2) Adverse past performance information to which the offeror previously has not had an opportunity to respond will be addressed in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in FAR 15.3.

(3) USAID will initially determine the relevance of past performance similar in size, scope and complexity as a predictor of probable performance under the subject requirement. USAID may give more relative importance performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current.

(4) The contractor performance information determined to be relevant will be evaluated in accordance with the elements below:

(i) Quality of product or service that is of similar size, scope and complexity, including consistency in meeting goals and targets;

(ii) Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting;

(iii) Schedule, including the timeliness against the completion of the Contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance);

(iv) Management or business relations, addressing the history of professional behavior and overall business-like concern for the interests of the customer, including the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts, cooperative attitude in remedying problems, and timely completion of all administrative requirements;

(v) Regulatory Compliance, including compliance with all terms and conditions in the awards relating to applicable regulations and codes (financial, environmental, safety, and other reporting requirements); and,

(vi) Utilization of Small Business, Utilization of Small Business, for prime offerors who are not small business concerns, their utilization of Small Business concerns as subcontractors, including efforts in achieving small business participation goals.

(vii) Other, additional evaluation areas that are unique to the contract/order, or that cannot be captured elsewhere in the evaluation will be considered, if applicable.

(5) An offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when:

(i) The offeror lacks relevant performance history,

(ii) Information on performance is not available, or

(iii) The offeror is a member of a class of offerors where there is provision not to rate the class against a sub factor.

When this occurs, an offeror lacking relevant performance history will be assigned a

"neutral" rating. The “neutral” rating will not be viewed favorably or unfavorably when taking into consideration the overall evaluation of the proposal. Prior to assigning a

"neutral" past performance rating, the contracting officer may take into account a broad range of information related to an offeror's performance.

M.3 BUSINESS/ COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION [See Section L.8]

(a) No cost evaluation will be performed on proposals determined to be non-responsive or technically unacceptable.

(b) The evaluation will be based upon the cost proposal and the supporting narrative provided by the Offeror. USAID will evaluate the proposed costs under the RFP and in accordance with the terms of this solicitation.

(c) Each cost proposal will be evaluated but will not be assigned a rating.

(d) The evaluation of cost will include a determination of cost realism, completeness, and reasonableness.

(1) An analysis of the proposed cost will be conducted to determine the validity and the extent to which it reflects performance addressed in the technical proposal.

(2) Cost/price evaluation will be performed to determine whether the proposed cost/prices is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the unique methods of performance set forth in the Offeror’s technical proposal and budget narrative.

(3) A cost realism analysis will be performed to determine whether the proposed costs and level of effort are realistic for the work to be performed under the RFP, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the unique methods of performance set forth in the offeror’s technical proposal and budget narrative.

(e) This evaluation is conducted with the expectation of adequate cost/price competition and will rely heavily on market forces to determine whether the proposed cost/price is fair and reasonable. The comparison of proposed cost/price in response to this solicitation is the preferred technique for this evaluation. USAID will also compare the proposed cost/price to historical cost/price paid for the same or similar services and the independent government cost estimate. Other techniques and procedures set forth in FAR

15.404-1(b), if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure proposed cost/price is fair and reasonable.

(f) Where technical evaluations between proposals are close, cost may be the determining factor.

M.4 DETERMINATION OF COMPETITIVE RANGE

(a) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and may award a Contract without discussions. However, a competitive range may be established from the selected offerors in

Phase II, if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary, he/she will establish a Competitive Range composed of only the most highly rated proposals pursuant to FAR 15.306(c).

(b) Selected offerors after completion of Phase II evaluation may be invited to participate in discussions. Only those offerors whose proposals are within the competitive range will be invited for discussions.

(c) Offerors are advised that, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. Should that be the case, the Contracting Officer may then limit offers in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.5 SOURCE SELECTION

(a) The overall evaluation methodology set forth above will be used by the contracting officer as a guide in determining which proposal offer the best value to the U.S.

Government. In accordance with FAR 52.215- 1, award will be made by the contracting officer to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the U.S.

Government after evaluation in accordance with all factors and sub-factors in this solicitation.

(b) Tradeoff: This procurement utilizes Advisory multi-step down-select process. The Government will first determine the acceptability of the technical proposal in Phase I. In

Phase II, the Government will utilize the tradeoff process set forth in FAR 15.101-1. The contracting officer shall award the contract to the Offeror in Phase II whose proposal represents the best value to the U.S. Government. The contracting officer may award to a higher priced Offeror in Phase II if a determination is made that the higher technical evaluation of that Offeror merits the additional cost/price, and therefore represents the best value to the Government.

[END OF ATTACHMENT J.7]