Attch 2 - Evaluation Factors Final.pdf

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Technical Evaluation Factors (i.e., non-Cost/Price) will be evaluated using an adjectival

(Outstanding, Acceptable, Unacceptable) rating scheme. The basis of award will be Best Value using Tradeoffs, price and non-price factors considered. The following factors are in descending order of importance.

FACTOR 1: Work Plan

The Contractor shall submit a clear and complete proposed Work Plan for performance of the required work. The Work Plan shall be comprehensive, implementable, and creative in meeting the requirement stated in the Statement of Work. The Work Plan must include description of its approach for achieving the Department’s objectives through the following:

(1) demonstrated understanding of the context, and work requirements included in the Statement of Work;

(2) a description of how the Offeror will achieve all work requirements given the context;

(3) a graphical chart of the management structure, description of personnel duties and responsibilities, and an explanation of why the proposed staffing plan will support successful contract performance; and

(4) an explanation of the logistical considerations for successful contract performance.

Evaluation Factor 1:

Work Plan Description

Outstanding

Demonstrates excellent understanding of context and requirements;

recognizes critical program elements and challenges; offers industry best practices and proactive and innovative solutions; significantly exceeds performance/capability standards; shows exceptional technical expertise/strengths that will significantly benefit the Government; has no deficiencies; has few, if any, minor weaknesses. Clearly identifies implementation risks and a plan for overcoming those challenges.

Demonstrates a clear, realistic, detailed implementation plan focused on achieving intended results.

Acceptable

Demonstrates clear understanding of context and requirements; meets performance/capability standards; has some strength; have several minor weaknesses yet no deficiencies. Demonstrates a clear, realistic implementation plan focused on achieving intended results, although a few minor implementation details are not specified.

Unacceptable

Demonstrates a lack of understanding of context and/or requirements;

fails to meet performance/capability standards; has deficiency or numerous weaknesses which cannot be corrected without major changes to the technical proposal and/or cost proposal. Major problems in project design.

FACTOR 2: Overseas Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Experience

Overseas Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Experience is defined as the full range of experience supporting criminal justice sector subject areas including the law enforcement, prosecution, criminal defense, judicial, and corrections sectors. This factor will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform solicitation requirements based on previous and current contract efforts.

For the purpose of evaluating experience, the Government will consider the collective past experience of the proposed contract team. For evaluation purposes, the proposed contract team includes the Prime Offeror, joint venture partner, and major subcontractor(s). For the purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that will likely perform more than 15% of the required effort.

(a) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent (within the last three years) and relevant record of performance in delivering services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

(i) Recency Assessment An assessment of the experience will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, experience must not be older than three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Experience that does not meet this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of experience obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. In determining relevancy for experience, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, to be performed under this contract by offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose experience is being reviewed and evaluated.

The Government will use the following definitions when assessing the relevancy of experience. With respect to relevancy, the Government will consider more relevant experience to be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the experience evaluation than experience of lesser relevance. Experience that does not include the full range of experience supporting criminal justice sector subject areas

-- including the law enforcement, prosecution, criminal defense, judicial, and corrections sectors -- will be considered less relevant.

(b) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the recency and relevancy assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated experience assessment rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant experience or for whom information on experience is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on experience and, as a result, will receive an "Unacceptable" rating for the experience factor.

More recent experience will have a greater impact on the experience Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. Likewise, a more relevant experience may receive a higher rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant of favorable experience.

Evaluation Factor 2:

Overseas Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Experience Rating Description

Outstanding

Shows exceptional technical expertise, breadth, and strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant experience, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Acceptable Demonstrates clear understanding of context and requirements. Some recent/relevant experience record is available though it may have minor gaps in expertise and/or not specific to the required effort.

Unacceptable

Demonstrates a lack of understanding of context and/or requirements.

No recent/relevant experience record is available or based on the offeror’s recent/relevant experience record, the Government has expectation that the offeror will not successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3: Subject-Matter Expertise Services Experience

Subject-Matter Expertise Services Experience will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform solicitation requirements based on previous and current contract efforts.

For the purpose of evaluating experience, the Government will consider the collective past experience of the proposed contract team. For evaluation purposes, the proposed contract team includes the Prime Offeror, joint venture partner, and major subcontractor(s). For the pu rposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that will likely perform more than 15% of the required effort.

(a) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent (within the last three years) and relevant record of performance in delivering services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right

An assessment of the experience will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, experience must not be older than three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Experience that does not meet this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of experience obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. In determining relevancy for experience, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, to be performed under this contract by offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose experience is being reviewed and evaluated.

The Government will use the following definitions when assessing the relevancy of experience. With respect to relevancy, the Government will consider more relevant experience to be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the experience evaluation than experience of lesser relevance.

(b) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the recency and relevancy assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated experience assessment rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant experience or for whom information on experience is so sparse that no meaningful assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on experience and, as a result, will receive an "Unacceptable" rating for the experience factor.

More recent experience will have a greater impact on the experience Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. Likewise, a more relevant experience may receive a higher rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant of favorable experience.

Evaluation Factor 3:

Subject-Matter Expertise Services Experience

Rating Description

Outstanding

Shows exceptional technical expertise, breadth, and strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant experience, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Acceptable

Demonstrates clear understanding of context and requirements. Some recent/relevant experience record is available though it may have some minor gaps in expertise and/or not specific to the required effort.

Unacceptable Demonstrates a lack of understanding of context and/or requirements.

No recent/relevant experience record is available or based on the offeror’s recent/relevant experience record, the Government has expectation that the offeror will not successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 4: Ability to Distill Technical Information into Useful Guidance

The Government will evaluate proposals for their ability to: (1) identify major information sources on a given topic; (2) accurately distill information; and (3) present information in a way that is useful to people designing and implementing foreign assistance projects.

For the purpose of the evaluation process, the Government will review Offerors' responses to the following prompt: in no more than four pages, summarize what “procedural justice” is, when INL staff should consider implementing procedural justice programs, the evidence base for procedural justice (i.e., research and/or evaluations that analyze data and reach conclusions about the degree to which/circumstances under which procedural justice projects improve police-community relations or other relevant outcomes), and tips on launching and managing a procedural justice project. Include citations.

Evaluation process: the Government will review each response and rate it based on accuracy, clarity, extent to which information is presented to be actionable to an INL Foreign Service Officer/program officer, and Offerors' demonstrated ability to identify relevant evidence.

Evaluation Factor 4:

Ability to Distill Technical Information into Useful Guidance

Rating Description

Outstanding

Demonstrates excellent understanding of context and requirements;

recognizes critical program elements and challenges; offers industry best practices and proactive and innovative solutions in clear and concise products. Based on the offeror’s demonstrated ability to distill and present complex information in line with the required prompt, and site relevant evidence, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Acceptable Demonstrates an understanding of context and requirements, though with some minor, non-specific technical details or information gaps.

Written products and presentations are concise and professional.

Unacceptable

Demonstrates a lack of understanding of context and/or requirements.

Based on the offeror’s provided product, based on the prompt, the Government has the expectation that the offeror will not successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 5: Price

The principal basis for evaluating price as a factor for award under this solicitation will be an evaluation of the reasonableness of the offeror’s respective overall proposed prices submitted in their Pricing Table and in the two (2) cost proposals submitted for the Subject Matter Expert (SME) Database (Time and Materials) and the Project Packages (Firm-Fixed Price) sample call orders. The Request for Proposal (RFP)-Statement of Work (SOW) for both the sample call orders are included as an attachment to this solicitation.

The Government will conduct an evaluation to determine ultimately that the final agreed-to overall price from their Pricing Table is fair and reasonable. The two (2) call order cost/price proposals will be evaluated together to determine the final overall price as basis of comparison.

The Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR

15.404 to conduct the evaluation.

However, the applicable pricing information proposed in the offeror’s Pricing Table and any other pricing tables (i.e., provisional billing indirect cost rates, ceiling indirect cost rates, fixed fully-loaded hourly labor rates, total of Time and Materials (part as T&M ceiling price), and pricing contained within the Firm-Fixed Price and Time and Materials proposals, will be used as the awarded pricing information if award is made without negotiations, or will be used as the basis of negotiation if award is made with negotiations.

FACTOR 6: Past Performance

Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform solicitation requirements based on previous and current contract efforts. A Past Performance Questionnaire has been provided as an attachment to this solicitation to assist in the evaluation. Instructions for completing the questionnaire is provided in the attachment as well. It is recommended that the vendor provide three (3) completed questionnaires for this evaluation factor.

For the purpose of evaluating past performance, the Government will consider the collective past performance of the proposed contract team. For evaluation purposes, the proposed contract team includes the Prime Offeror, joint venture partner, and major subcontractor(s). For the purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that will likely perform more than 15% of the required effort.

(a) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent (within the last three years) and relevant record of performance in delivering services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an ind ividual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, past performance must not be older than three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. In determining relevancy for past performance references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, to be performed under this contract by offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose performance is being reviewed and evaluated.

The Government will use the following definitions when assessing the relevancy of past performance references. With respect to relevancy, the Government will consider more relevant Past Performance to be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance evaluation than Past Performance of lesser relevance.

(b) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Evaluation Factor 6:

Past Performance

Rating Description

Confidence

Demonstrates recent ability to meet past contract deliverables, with high performance ratings, relevant to the majority of CJEP subject areas

(Section 3.2.4). Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

Demonstrates recent ability to meet past contract deliverables, with high performance ratings, relevant to less than half of CJEP subject areas (Section 3.2.4).

No Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has expectation that the offeror will not successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 7: Key Personnel and Staffing Plan

The Contractor shall provide personnel that have the right skill sets, knowledge of the latest criminal justice sector developments, laws, and best practices in criminal justice to successfully perform the tasks, subtasks, and activities identified in the Statement of Work. The Contractor shall submit resumes for key personnel. The resume shall include name, education, certification(s), current security clearance level, technical skills, relevant training received within the past two (2) years, and current relevant professional experience. The Contractor shall describe the roles and responsibilities for the key personnel proposed. The Contractor shall provide a Staffing Plan that describes “how” the contractor will staff the project, including labor categories and number of resources under each labor category. The Contractor shall also provide a recent signed employment agreement/contingent hire agreement for individuals whose resumes are presented and who are not currently employed by the Contractor or one or its subcontractors.

The contingent agreement shall specify position and negotiated salary range.

Evaluation Criteria:

The Contractor will be evaluated as follows:

(1) Key Personnel. The Government shall evaluate the ability of key personnel and non-key personnel to successfully accomplish project objectives and work requirements. The Government shall also evaluate the contractor’s integration of the roles and responsibilities of key and non-key personnel to ensure an efficient, effective management structure that will be proactive in achieving contract requirements and responsive in successfully resolving unanticipated challenges that arise during the period of performance. The criteria for evaluation are as follows:

• Degree to which proposed key personnel are deemed highly qualified;

• Degree to which proposed key personnel have verifiable relevant experience to three (3) or more years in a project management office;

• Extent to which proposed non-key personnel possess demonstrated experience in work similar in size, scope and complexity as that of the required effort;

• Extent to which resumes of key personnel demonstrate education, professional experience and certification(s) appropriate for the positions proposed;

• Extent to which the Staffing Plan provides a well-structured and efficient organization with appropriate type and quality of skill sets that will enable to contractor to be proactive in achieving contract requirements and responsive in successfully resolving unanticipated challenges that arise during the period of performance; and

• Level of confidence that the contractor has the key and non-key personnel resources to successfully perform the required effort.

(2) Staffing Plan: The Contractor shall include proof of the contractor’s demonstrated ability to hire and maintain qualified staff, handle personnel issues, assemble high quality staff to fill immediate requirements, and provide staff with all the necessary support and oversight. It will also include a recruitment and selection process for all staff under this contract, as well as the number of personnel it deems necessary to implement the project.

Staffing Plan Requirements. The Contractor shall provide a Key Personnel and Staffing Plan (the “Staffing Plan)” to address recruiting methodology. The Staffing Plan shall include:

• a detailed description of how the Contractor shall perform pre-deployment processing and screening for all staffing types (e.g. U.S. Citizens, third country nationals, and host country nationals)

• the location, duration, and type of training and orientation proposed;

• medical and other processing required;

• a detailed description of how the Contractor will familiarize staff with INL processes, project packages, and Foundations of Criminal Justice;

• recruitment issues such as examining, hiring, assigning, supervising, evaluating, processing, and deploying advisors to accomplish the requirements of this contract;

• a detailed organization and staffing chart that delineates clear lines of control, decision making, and coordination inside and outside the Con tractor’s organization and the geographical location of each advisor or staff member;

• a proposal for necessary program management office support staff;

• a description of the Contractor’s approach to providing a management, administrative, and logistics support staff for CONUS/OCONUS operations that is a mix of full-time, part-time, and “reach-back” capacity;

• identification of all required licenses and permits for the Contractor to complete the requirements of this contract; and

• a description of how the Contractor will minimize delays in deploying personnel.

Evaluation Factor 7:

Key Personnel and Staffing Plan

Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposed key personnel are highly qualified and experienced. Staffing plan clearly aligns with and facilitates meeting the requirements outlined in Section 3. Efficient and cost-effective management structure that will enable achievement of project goal and objectives during implementation. Clear roles and responsibilities between in-country staff and any U.S. based staff to enable effective communication with INL.

Key personnel and staffing plan offer significant strengths and few, if any, minor weaknesses. Staff plan included pre-deployment training to familiarize staff with working with INL and the Department of State.

Acceptable

Proposed key personnel meet the minimum qualifications. Staffing plan aligns with and facilitates meeting the requirements outlined in Section

3. Logical and appropriate staffing plan and management structure will enable achievement of project goal and objectives during implementation and avoid increased level of Government involvement. Roles and responsibilities between in-country staff and any U.S. based staff are identified. Key personnel and staffing plan offer few minor weaknesses and no deficiencies.

Unacceptable

Proposed key personnel do not meet the minimum qualifications.

Staffing plan does not align with and/or facilitate implementation of the requirements in Section 3. Management structure will prevent effective communication with INL. Major problems in staffing will prevent achievement of project goal and objectives during implementation.

Management structure will result in increased level of Government involvement to achieve intended results. Roles and responsibilities between in-country staff and any U.S. based staff are not identified. Key personnel and staffing plan offer major weaknesses.