EVALUATION FACTORS_Localization Services...pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS

LOCALIZATION SERVICES

The USAGM (hereinafter Government) will award a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation provides the “best value” to the Government as that term is defined in FAR 13.303.

Note: The Government reserve the right to award a Blanket Purchase Agreement to a single or multiple contractors.

The Government will use the following factors, listed in descending order of importance, to evaluate proposals:

• Factor 1: Technical Approach and Capability:

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

Factor 1 – Technical Approach and Capability:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical approach and capability to perform the technical requirements set forth in the Statement of Work (SOW) to determine if the Offeror understands the requirements and has proposed an approach that will satisfy the Government’s requirements in a quality and timely manner. The Offeror’s technical approach must address the technical requirement in the SOW in sufficient detail to clearly and fully demonstrate that the Offeror meets the requirements and has sufficient resources to meet and complete all the Government’s technical requirements. The technical requirement is identified in the Statement of Work (see 3. Technical Requirements). The contractor must present a good understanding of the technical requirement and have the capabilities and resources to perform the job in the listed countries in the SOW (Appendix A: REQUIRED LANGUAGES).

In addition to that, the offeror shall provide the following:

1. Number of translators/linguists available.

2. List of languages translated, including regional dialects (indicate any particular regional or linguistic strengths).

3. Estimated turnaround time for 60 minutes.

4. Years in business.

5. Certifications by recognized professional translator organizations.

The government will provide the bidders with a sample video (please see the Video Sample document for details) to determine the company capabilities.

Factor 2 – Past Performance:

Past Performance is defined as a measure of how well the Offeror has performed under active or completed contracts of similar requirement, such as the contractor must present a list of contracts in the past 3 years that he previously accomplished with similar requirement and the level of difficulties.

The Government’s evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on information provided by the Offeror and information obtained independently from a variety of public and private sources including the references provided in the Past Performance Section of the Offeror’s proposal. The evaluation will consider:

a) Quality of Service – Compliance with the BPA requirements; customer satisfaction; etc.

b) Timeliness of Performance – Reliable; responsive to technical direction; adhered to the BPA schedule; tasks completed/provided on-time; no history of significant performance penalties.

c) Business Relations – Effective and efficient management; businesslike correspondence;

prompt notification of problems; flexible; pro-active; responsive to inquiries, prompt notification of problems and problem resolution, customer satisfaction, effective and efficient contractor recommended solutions.

d) Personnel Management – Work force properly trained and given proper direction to ensure that required tasks are successfully performed.

NOTE: The Offeror shall only include the information required above in the Past Performance Section of the Offeror’s proposal. The Government will not evaluate or consider other information or Past Performance information in other Sections of the Technical proposal.

The offeror shall provide past performance information for no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies, state/local governments and/or commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the issue date of this RFQ or currently being performed. Relevant contracts include contracts similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this RFQ.

please refer to the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) along with the solicitation.

The Offeror shall provide a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) for the referenced project, if one is available. If a CPAR is not available, the Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) signed by the customer reference (see attached PPQ to this RFQ). PPQs shall not be sent directly to the Contracting Office soliciting this requirement; it is the responsibility of the Offeror to include the completed CPAR and/or PPQ as part of its quote.

The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. An Offeror lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, i.e., the Offerors lacking relevant past performance information will receive a neutral rating. However, the proposal of an Offeror with no relevant past performance history, while not rated favorably or unfavorably for past performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposals of other Offerors. If an Offeror fails to provide any past performance information that meets the requirements detailed in the solicitation or fails to affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance, the offer may not be acceptable for award. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Past Performance factor will be used to determine the risk of non- performance, defective performance, and/or late performance.

Factor 3 – Price:

The Offeror must provide a fixed rate per minute for every listed language in the Statement of Work (See 8. Appendix A: REQUIRED LANGUAGES).” The Government will provide each offeror a Microsoft Office Excel sheet with the list of languages.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed fixed rate per minute for each language listed in the SOW (See 8. Appendix A: REQUIRED LANGUAGES) to determine price reasonableness as it relates to the technical requirements and to assist in the best value determination.

EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL APPROACH AND CAPABILITY FACTOR

The Government shall evaluate this factor using five qualitative adjectival rating definitions (Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, or Unacceptable). If a factor is rated Unacceptable, it will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable.

The Government will evaluate the Technical Proposal using the following adjectival rating.

Adjectival Rating

Description

Excellent Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good

Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist.

Fair

Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Poor

Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist.

Unacceptable

Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

PAST PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION OF THE PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The Government shall use the following adjectival ratings to evaluate the Past Performance Factor:

(1) High – Significant doubt exists, based on the comparative analysis of the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror can perform the work.

(2) Moderate – Some doubt exists, based on the comparative analysis of the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror can perform the work.

(3) Low – Little doubt exists, based on the comparative analysis of the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror can perform the work.

(4) Not Available – No significant performance record is identified.

Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Past Performance assessments will help predict how an Offeror will perform based on its performance on active or completed contracts of similar size, scope and complexity. An Offeror without any past performance will receive a neutral rating.

EVALUATION OF THE PRICE FACTOR

The Price Factor will not receive an adjectival rating. See “Factor 3—Price.”

However, if all proposals are equal in rating for Technical Approach / Capability, and past performance, then, the price will play a major role in determining the best value to the government.

DETERMINATION OF BEST VALUE

The Government will award a BPA to the Offeror that is judged to be the “best value” to the Government as that term is defined in FAR 13.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers in descending order of importance:

1. Technical Approach and Capability

2. Past Performance

3. Price

When the Technical Approach /Capability and Past Performance (1 – 2) are combined, they are significantly more important than price (Factor 3).

The Government reserves the right to make one award, multiple awards or no award, depending upon the quality of the proposals submitted to the government.

The Government will not, in any case, make award to an Offeror it considers having substandard capabilities or unreasonable prices.

If the Offeror’s proposal is determined unacceptable in any of the technical evaluation factors the proposal may not be considered for award. The Government reserves the right to award the BPA to other than the lowest priced Offeror. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the Blanket Purchase agreement without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

Proposal Rating:

Item General Description

Excellent Proposed approach indicates an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive understanding of the requirements and objectives and displays the highest levels of technical competence. The proposal significantly exceeds all requirements and sets forth plans and approaches that show the highest probability of obtaining superior performance. The proposal has no weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

Good Proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements and objectives and displays technical competence. The proposal meets or exceeds all requirements and sets forth plans and approaches that show a good probability of obtaining effective performance, no weaknesses.

Fair Proposed approach indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and objectives. The proposal displays minimal technical competence. The proposal has a few strengths and some weaknesses, but the weaknesses are generally offset by strengths.

Poor Proposed approach indicates a lack of understanding of the requirements and objectives. Displays significant weaknesses that may not be correctable. There are numerous weaknesses, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable There is a material failure in a proposal to meet a government requirement or there are deficiencies in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

PAST PERFORMANCE