Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation.pdf

NIEHS2016 062

75N96020Q00008

FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 BASIS FOR AWARD - EVALUATION

(a) Basis for Award. The selection of a source for award will be conducted utilizing Simplified Acquisition

Procedures as delineated in FAR Part 13. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to award with discussions. Quoter is encouraged to present their best quote and prices in their initial quote submission. The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include Factor I, Technical Capability (which encompasses four (4) sub factors), Factor II, Past Performance, and Factor III, Price. Although the technical capability and past performance factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, price is also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government will utilize a tradeoff approach and reserves the right to make award to the Quoter whose submission provides the best overall value to the Government. The

Government intends to make one (1) award to the Quoter whose submission provides the best overall value to the

Government.

Quoters are advised that award(s) will be made to that Quoter whose submission provides the combination of features with the best or greatest overall value to the Government. The Government is more concerned with obtaining performance capability superiority rather than lowest overall cost. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve only slightly superior performance. Overall cost to the Government may become the ultimate factor for award of a contract as submissions become more equal based on other factors. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the RFQ. The merits of each submission will be evaluated carefully. Each submission must document the feasibility of successful implementation of requirements of the RFQ. Quoters must submit information sufficient to evaluate their submissions based on the detailed criteria below.

a. Factor I – Technical Capability: The Government will evaluate the technical submission to ensure it is acceptable or higher. Each submission will be rated utilizing the ratings defined below (price excluded).

Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the Quoter’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each sub factor.

Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award.

(a) Subfactor 1- Contract Management Approach: In order to be considered acceptable the Quoter’s responses must at a minimum demonstrate:

− Management’s ability to meet the objectives of the basic contract and task orders;

− A comprehensive organizational structure that clearly demonstrates how the requirement will be managed to successfully execute the contract requirements; and

− An efficient and effective approach for managing and controlling team members in multiple functional areas and various travel locations, to include subcontractors that demonstrate a low risk to the Government in executing the contract requirements.

− Solutions that are considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements

− The ability to support multiple, complex tasks simultaneously,

(b) Subfactor 2 – Task Order Seed Project 1 (RFQ Attachment IV): In order to be considered acceptable the Quoter’s responses to STO 1 must at a minimum demonstrate:

− A sound approach that demonstrates the suitable labor categories, staffing mix, and man-hours needed to successfully execute the task order based on qualifications, education levels, knowledge and expertise, clearances, and certifications of proposed labor categories.

− Appropriate utilization of labor and non-labor resources, and work flow prioritization of effort

− The ability to successfully execute the approach proposed.

(c) Subfactor 3 – Task Order Seed Project 2 (RFQ Attachment V): In order to be considered acceptable the Quoter’s responses to STO 2 must at a minimum demonstrate:

− A sound approach that demonstrates the suitable labor categories, staffing mix, and man-hours needed to successfully execute the task order based on qualifications, education levels, knowledge and expertise, clearances, and certifications of proposed labor categories.

− Appropriate utilization of labor and non-labor resources, and work flow prioritization of effort

− The ability to successfully execute the approach proposed.

(d) Subfactor 4 – Basic Contract Technical Experience: In order to be considered acceptable the

Quoter’s responses must at a minimum demonstrate:

– Experience working on Government website policies and Government Collaborating Centre web content;

– Experience working in the in an analytical and technical capacity on IT requirements in a public health or environmental public health field while staffing and managing qualified personnel located in geographically dispersed locations within the last three (3) years from the solicitation issuance date;

– Experience supporting international workshops and working with international organizations;

– Experience developing and maintaining program tracking databases and systems; and

– Familiarity with the development of educational materials for health professionals and other students.

– An approach that demonstrates the Quoter’s ability to successfully execute the task order based on qualifications, education levels, knowledge and expertise, clearances, and certifications of proposed labor categories.

– Appropriate utilization of labor and non-labor resources, and work flow prioritization of effort

– The ability to provide an effective team structure and international partnerships and;

The Government will evaluate the Technical submission using the following adjectival rating:

Rating Definition

Exceptional

Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria. Technical submission contains 5 or more significant strengths and strengths that are not offset and no significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or deficiencies. May include strengths. Quoter has a very high probability of success.

Good

Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria. Technical submission contains at least 1 significant strength and strengths that are not offset and no significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or deficiencies. May include strengths. Quoter has a high probability of success.

Acceptable

Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria. Technical submission contains one significant weaknesses or deficiencies and weaknesses that are correctable. May include offset strength(s) and/or significant strength(s). Quoter has an average probability of success

Marginal

Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria. Contains numerous significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies exist and/or weaknesses exist that must be corrected. May include offset strength(s) and/or significant strength(s).

Quoter has a low probability of success

Unacceptable

Fails to meet most of the minimum requirements of the criteria. Submission needs major revisions. Contains significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies and/or weaknesses. May include offset strength(s) and/or significant strength(s). Quoter has a very low probability of success.

NOTE: A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each subfactor. Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award. The Government will not make an award to any Quoter with an unacceptable rating or a deficiency in ANY factor or sub factor.

Definitions:

• Significant Strength: An aspect of the quotation that greatly exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

• Strength: An aspect of the quotation that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

• Weakness: An aspect of the quotation which is likely to increase the probability of unsuccessful contract performance

• Significant Weakness: An aspect of the quotation that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Deficiency: An omission of or a material failure in the quotation to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

b. Factor II - Past Performance: The Past Performance Factor evaluation will assess the relevance and breadth of the Quoter’s experience and the quality of the Quoter’s past performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the Quoter has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Quoter consistently delivers quality services in a timely and cost-effective manner. In evaluating past performance, HHS/NIH will only take into consideration the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Quoter 's customers. However, the HHS/NIH reserves the right to use other relevant past performance information it obtains through other sources including other agency databases and information contained in trade literature.

• Relevance of Experience: The Quoter’s experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirement on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type, and period of performance. Only recent experience will be evaluated. Evaluations may include interviews with previous clients of the prime contractor and subcontractors and may include interviews with previous clients of proposed personnel. The Quoter’s experience with and knowledge of issues and problems of large organizations will be evaluated. If some of the Quoter’s experience is relevant and the rest is not, only the relevant experience will be evaluated for purposes of past performance. If no experience is relevant or the experience that is relevant cannot be evaluated due to a reference’s failure to respond, a rating of neutral will be assigned for past performance as defined in the next table.

• Past Performance Assessments: The Quoter’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of information contained in the Quoter’s submission and the information that the Government obtains through other means. The past performance evaluation will assess the Quoter’s record of providing high quality services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures maximum accuracy, throughput, cost effectiveness and overall client satisfaction.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Definition

Neutral No past performance available for evaluation. Quoter has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Submission receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding

Based on the Quoter’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experiences indicate that the Quoter is capable of exceeding the requirements of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Good

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experience indicate the Quoter will meet or exceed the requirements of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Acceptable

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experience indicate the Quoter may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Unsatisfactory

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the task order

c. Factor III - Price: Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate each

Quoter’s total proposed price for seed project 1 and seed project 2 to determine if the Quoter’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR

13.106. Seed project 1 will be issued as the first task order and seed project 2 may be issued during fiscal year 20 as task order 2. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106. The price for each seed project will be evaluated separately, and collectively to represent the total evaluated price.

As part of the price fair and reasonable determination, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six (6) months of the Quoter’s total price. The Quoter shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of the performance period, utilizing the rates of that performance period.

(b) Options. As part of the price fair and reasonable determination, the Government will evaluate its option to extend the term of the contract (see FAR Clause 52.217-9) by using six (6) months of the last years ceiling and the unit prices of the last year. The Quoter shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of the performance period, utilizing the rates of that performance period.

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Quoter within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)