Attachment J.8 Section M - Phase II Evaluation Factors For Award.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.8 – 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 II proposals as follows:

(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

PHASE

II

Factor 2 Local Partner Factor 2 and 1 are of equal importance and more important than Factors 3, 4 and 5.

Factor 3 Inception Phase Approach

Factor 3 is more important than Factors 4 and 5 but less important than Factor 1 and 2.

Factor 4 Key Personnel and Management Approach

Factor 4 is more important than Factor 5 but less important than Factors 1,2, and 3.

Factor 5 Contractor Past Performance Information

Factor 5 is less important than Factors 1,2,3, and 4.

M.2.3 Phase II Evaluation Factors

During Phase II, only Factors 2,3,4, and 5 will be evaluated based on the following:

M.2.3(a) FACTOR 2 – Local Partner [See Section L.5.2(a)]

As determined by USAID, the ability to meet the definition of a local partner, after provision of all required documentation. If an organization meets the definition of being a ‘local partner’, it will be afforded the highest confidence rating. If it does not meet the definition of local partner, 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 with little or no Government intervention.

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 with some Government intervention.

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 even with Government intervention.

it will be afforded a ‘some confidence’ rating. This is the manner in which the government will demonstrate its preference for local partners as stated on the cover page.

M.2.3.(b) FACTOR 3 – Inception Phase Approach [See Section L.5.2(b)]

The Inception Phase Approach will be evaluated to the extent to which the offeror demonstrates a collaborating and learning approach capable of generating an adaptive roadmap for achieving and measuring the program objectives as described in the Statement of Objectives. This includes the extent to which the offeror demonstrates knowledge of the policy context in Zambia, particularly constraints to investment and their differential impact on men and women, and the approach to addressing the inception phase’s five questions and how the Offeror will use that information to shape subsequent implementation of the activity.

M.2.3.(c) FACTOR 4 – Key Personnel and Management Approach [See Section L.5.2(c)] Key Personnel and Management approach will be evaluated based on:

• The extent to which the proposed Key Personnel positions are proposed and logically linked to the successful outcome of the PBWS. List of Key Personnel positions (do not include names) with the appropriate skill sets/minimum (required see section F) qualifications or attributes to determine qualified candidates for the positions to assure successful achievement of the contract objectives.

● The extent to which the offeror demonstrates an organogram that reflects the offeror’s

PBWS, appropriate level of effort, reporting relationships, and where any overlap may occur and if/why it is necessary. The extent to which the proposed staffing structure, including proposed roles, responsibilities, and lines of reporting and communication of the key personnel, long and short term professionals, sub-contractor personnel and home office (if applicable) support personnel meet program expectations and scale, as well as maintain accountability for programming.

● Offerors must explain how the staffing plan will fulfill the programmatic and operational requirements of the BEP, including program management, technical assistance, procurement, and financial oversight, coordination, and program administration. The proposal must demonstrate the qualifications and complementary skills of the long-term professionals, short-term professionals, and home office support (if applicable), and subcontractor personnel, and the extent to which the partners proposed to implement the activity possess relevant technical capacity and experience that demonstrates those partners’ ability to implement BEP.

● The extent to which the offeror clearly articulates the division of responsibilities between staff and offices, and engagement with subcontractors and other stakeholders to implement the offeror’s PBWS and achieve the objectives outlined in Section C.

● The extent to which the offeror will engage with the sub-contractors, government entities, donors, consortium/partnership, other stakeholders and USAID, clearly delineate the roles, responsibilities and lines of communication between all consortium members, while describing how collaboration and knowledge sharing will occur across teams. The extent to which the contractors and sub-contractors’ proposed responsibilities are complementary and demonstrate integration and are not duplicative.

● The extent to which the proposed plan for developing partnerships and alliances is facilitative and avoids the development of structures parallel to existing structures and systems, and clearly articulates plans for participation of key stakeholders in programmatic decision-making. The Offeror will describe the geographic location of all offices and how the proposed location promotes implementation and coordination within the team and with key stakeholders.

M.2.3.(d) FACTOR 5 – Contractor Past Performance Information [See Section L.5.2(d)]

1. Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and the 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 the references provided in Section L.7.10 of this RFP and 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 similar performance information 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. Management of key personnel, including appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems with clients where identified; and,

vi. 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. Evaluation of the Use of Small Businesses: USAID will evaluate the extent the offeror used and promoted the use of small business concerns under current and past contracts. The evaluation will assess the extent small business concerns participated in these contracts relative to the size/value of the contracts, the complexity and variety of the work small business concerns performed, and compliance with your SB subcontracting plan or other similar small business incentive programs set out in your Contract.

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.6]

(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.

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. 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.

(1) 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.

(2) 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 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 a down-select process. The Government will first determine the eligibility 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 will 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.8]