CMCS-393-2017-0040_TechEvalCrit.docx

Technical Evaluation Criteria

CMCS-393-2017-0040

Evaluation Criteria for Technical Proposals for Technical Assistance for States on Insure Kids Now (IKN) Dentist Provider Locator

The Technical Evaluation Panel members will review the technical proposals and evaluate each based on the criteria specified. The following provides an outline of the evaluation criteria for all proposals, as well as the adjective rankings. If proposals are considered technically acceptable, the following will be applied to the technical and business evaluation of each proposal.

A. CRITERIA FOR WRITTEN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

TECHNICAL QUOTE EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1: Management Approach and Technical Capabilities

1. Understanding of the work, including creativity and thoroughness shown in understanding the objectives of the SOW and specific tasks, and planned execution of the project.

2. Evidence of specific methods and techniques for completing each discrete task, to include such items as quality assurance, and customer-service.

3. Ability to address anticipated potential problem areas, and creativity and feasibility of solutions to problems and future integration of new processes and technology enhancements.

4. Degree to which the offeror’s quote demonstrates an understanding of logistics, schedule, and any other miscellaneous issues in which the Government should be aware.

5. Quality and effectiveness of the allocation of personnel and resources.

Factor 2: Experience and Capabilities

1. The organization’s history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and other deliverables; history of staying on schedule and within budget.

2. The quality of cooperation (with each other) of key individuals within your organization, and quality of cooperation and performance between your organization and its clients.

3. The organization’s specific experience on prior similar efforts specified within this SOW.

4. The organization’s specific experience on Medicaid efforts/initiatives specified within this SOW

Factor 3: Organizational Experience

1. Evidence that the organization has current capabilities; and for assuring performance of this requirement. Evidence of supporting subcontractors, consultants and business partners will be considered.

2. Appropriate mix and balance of education and training of team members in web support and development including content management system experience.

Factor 4: Personnel Qualifications

1. The currency, quality and depth of experience of individual personnel in working on similar projects. Similar projects must convey similarity in topic, dollar value, workload, duration, and complexity. Understanding the Federal and State partnership in Medicaid and how to incorporate/accommodate that sensitivity in deliverables is crucial.

2. Quality and depth of education and experience on other projects which may not be similar enough to include in response to 4.1. (Immediately above) but may be relevant.

3. The currency, quality and depth of how the Project Director will supervise and coordinate the workforce.

4. The currency, quality and depth of expertise with the current content Management Software, Percussion.

BUSINESS QUOTE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate each offeror‘s proposal to determine whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable. A cost realism analysis will be performed to independently review and evaluate the specific elements of the proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal. In addition, other areas of the Business Proposal will be analyzed such as a reasonable profit and offeror’s Conflict of Interest certificate(s), offeror responsibility determination(s), etc.

B. RATING STANDARDS:

EXCELLENT

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit that significantly exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the Government, and contains at least one exceptional enhancing feature that benefits the Government. Exceptional in essentially all respects. Any weakness is minor. Represents the best that could be expected of any contractor. Exceeds “Highly Acceptable” rating.

HIGHLY ACCEPTABLE

Proposal demonstrates overall competence and exceeds requirements in a way that benefits the Government or meets requirements and contains enhancing feature(s) that benefit the Government. One or more important strengths have been found, and strengths outweigh any weaknesses that exist. Any weaknesses are correctable. Proposal is above the average expected from any qualified contractor. Exceeds “Acceptable” rating.

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal shows a reasonably sound response and meets requirements. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. Strengths and weaknesses offset one another. Weaknesses do not significantly detract from the offeror’s response. Any weaknesses appear to be correctable and will have little or no impact on contract performance. Proposal represents the norm from a qualified contractor.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal has one or more weaknesses and/or deficiencies that are expected to be difficult to correct or are not correctable. There is no degree of confidence in successful performance. Proposal lacks quality. Contractor would have to completely revise proposal to make this rating other than “Unacceptable.”