SECTION_M_-_Final__7-15-16.docx

Office of Director

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency Page 5

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. Conduct of Acquisition: This acquisition shall be conducted using the policies and procedures in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). A Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) shall evaluate proposals in accordance with evaluation scheme, factors and criteria in this section of the Request for Proposals (RFP). The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall select an offeror for award using the best value analysis described in this section of the RFP. Award will be made to the responsible Contractor whose proposal is responsive to this RFP and is determined to represent the best value to the Government. An offeror’s proposal will be eliminated from consideration prior to completion of evaluations if the proposal is so deficient or incomplete as to be rendered unacceptable and to preclude a meaningful evaluation. For example, an offeror’s proposal shall be deemed unacceptable if it does not represent a reasonable effort to address the minimum requirements of the Statement of Work. The offeror will be notified in the event his proposal is eliminated from evaluation.

b. Best Value: Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluation of the strengths, weaknesses and/or deficiencies of each offeror’s proposal in accordance with evaluation criteria stated in the RFP. A Best Value selection basis reflects the Government’s willingness to accept other than the lowest cost/price if the perceived benefits of the proposal with the higher price merit the additional cost/price. The award decision will be made based on an integrated assessment of each proposal on a “tradeoff” basis between technical excellence, past performance and price. The rationale for the tradeoffs between a higher cost or price proposal and the benefits obtained for that offeror’s technical proposal and past performance will be documented in the Selection Decision Statement. In making this integrated assessment of all proposals, the Government strives to obtain superior performance rather than the lowest overall price. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to the Government to obtain only slightly improved performance or past performance and, in essence, as non-cost factors become more equal, price becomes more important.

c. Number of Awards: The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this RFP.

M.2 OVERALL RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will use the following three (3) factors to evaluate proposals and make a best value determination (factors are listed in descending order of importance):

1. Technical Approach

1. Past Performance

1. Price The Technical Evaluation Factor is significantly more important than the combined evaluations for Past Performance and Price. However, the Government will not make an award to an offeror whose evaluated price is disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one offeror’s Technical and Past Performance proposal over another. Therefore, to the extent that offerors’ Technical and Past Performance proposals are evaluated as similar in merit, then the offeror’s Price is more likely to be the determining factor for award.

M.3 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS FOR EVALUATION FACTOR 1 (TECHNICAL)

M.3 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS FOR EVALUATION FACTOR 1 (TECHNICAL)

The following adjectival rating descriptions shall be used for Evaluation Factor 1:

Excellent: The Technical Proposal demonstrates the offeror’s complete understanding of all of the requirements, and proposes innovative, cost effective approaches or solutions that will significantly exceed IRS’ requirements using standard industry practices, technologies, methodologies, and processes. Proposals evaluated with excellent ratings possess several significant strengths, no deficiencies or major weaknesses and the performance under this award is considered to be virtually no risk of disruption of cost, schedule or performance. There may be correctable minor weaknesses. The offeror’s technical proposal, when implemented, is expected to result in superior achievement of the Government’s objectives with minimal risk.

Very Good: The Offeror’s proposed approach exceeds the minimum requirements in the SOW in a way that is beneficial to the Government. There are strengths and no deficiencies or major weaknesses. There may be correctable minor weaknesses and the performance under this award is considered low risk of disruption of cost, schedule or performance.

Satisfactory: The Offeror’s proposed approach meets the minimum requirements in the SOW. There are few strengths and no deficiencies and there may be correctable major or minor weaknesses and the performance under this award is considered average risk of disruption of cost, schedule or performance.

Unsatisfactory: The Offeror’s proposed approach does not meet the requirements in the SOW. There are few or no strengths and there may be deficiencies and/or major weaknesses. The performance under this award is considered high risk of disruption of cost, schedule or performance. An unsatisfactory proposal is one in which an unacceptable risk of performance failure exists.

M.4 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS FOR EVALUATION FACTOR 2 (PAST PERFORMANCE)

ATTACHMENT C: SECTION III: PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

I. Factor 2. Past Performance.

Past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in (FISMA) audit services.

1. One performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements/SOW.

1. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the performance confidence assessment ratings listed below. An offer with an overall performance confidence rating of “Unacceptable - No Confidence” for this factor will not be eligible for award.

Acceptable - Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable - No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating cannot be reasonably assigned.

1. The Government will consider offeror’s previous and current record of contractual performance. The assessment will focus on recent contracts that are relevant to the effort required by this solicitation. Recent past performance to this effort is defined to be work performed within the last three (3) calendar years from the issuance date of the solicitation.

1. Relevant past performance to this effort is defined as work similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires; i.e., active tracking devices IAW/requirements in SOW; key events (alerts) for remote location monitoring, IT software and hardware; operation of monitoring solution system, etc.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating.

1. Offerors shall provide a listing of all applicable contract references that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance. Contract references could be Government contracts, Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with governmental or non-governmental entities or any other reference that demonstrates recent and relevant past performance.

1. It is at the Government’s discretion to determine whether past performance information furnished is or is not considered recent and relevant.

1. The information presented by the offeror, responses to the Past Performance Questionnaire and information obtained from available sources other than those identified by the offerors (such as past performance information obtained from Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Federal information systems, such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), better business bureaus, published media, personal knowledge, and electronic data bases available to the Government) will be the basis for evaluation of this factor.

1. The Government may reject a proposal if it is found that any information that has a negative impact on the offerors past performance record has been deleted, misrepresented, or withheld.

1. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving an acceptable past performance rests with the offerors.

1. Offerors may provide information on problems encountered on the contracts identified in their past performance submissions and the offerors’ corrective actions.

Past Performance Questionnaires: It is the offeror’s responsibility to send past performance questionnaires to its customers and ensure they are submitted to this contracting office no later than 1:00 pm Eastern Time Friday, August 5, 2016. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFQ.

See Attachment C-1: Past Performance Questionnaire

M.5 NO ADJECTIVAL RATING WILL BE USED FOR FACTOR 3 (PRICE PROPOSAL)

The Government will evaluate Price to ensure it is complete, reasonable and realistic by verifying that all prices and cost to the Government are in accordance with the FAR. Each offeror will be evaluated to determine that the total price proposed is fair and reasonable.

M.6 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS FOR FACTOR 1 (TECHNICAL)

The Government will develop a separate adjectival rating for Evaluation Factor 1 based on Technical Approach.

M.6.1 EVALUTION FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Government will assess:

· The soundness and quality of the proposed technical approach.

· The objectives, work requirements, and potential challenges which may occur as a result of performing the work and the inherent risk and their mitigation in achieving objectives.

· The degree to which the proposed Statement of Work (SOW) provides assurance that the solution (including proposed products, services, and approach) will meet the program and minimum requirements set forth in the SOW.

M.6.2 EVALUATION FACTOR 2 – PAST EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE

1. The past performance evaluation will examine the offeror’s past experience and past and present performance to determine their ability to manage contracts and subcontract in projects of similar size, scope and complexity contemplated under this award to include areas such as, but not necessarily limited to: customer satisfaction, adherence to cost, schedule and performance baselines, risk mitigation and resolution of unanticipated problems for the IRS. The past experience/past performance evaluation will examine the offeror’s actual performance on a minimum of two (2) similar contracts. This review will focus on the size, scope, and complexity of the efforts, the performance measures/service levels applied, the actual performance results against those measures, and customer satisfaction achieved by the offeror.

1. In conducting this assessment, the Government may use data obtained from other sources as well as that provided in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to check the past experience/past performance of any proposed subcontractors and team members and include the results in its assessment.

M.6.3 EVALUATION FACTOR 3 –PRICE

1. The Government will evaluate the proposed total price of the performance period to determine that the cost/price is valid, realistic and consistent, and fair and reasonable.

1. The price proposal will be evaluated for consistency and understanding of the SOW requirements in response to this RFP and SOW.

M.7 ORAL PRESENTATIONS

After proposals are submitted, the Government may request that the offerors conduct oral presentations of the proposal. The purpose of the oral presentation is to give the offeror the opportunity to highlight its experience, technical solution, and management approach. The offeror’s presentation shall be given by the offeror’s Program Manager and other key personnel and is limited to one (1) hour with approximately one hour for questions and answers to follow. At the end of the questions and answers period, the offeror will be given an ad hoc problem scenario and will have 20 minutes to derive a solution and 15 minutes to present the solution to the Government evaluation team. The problem scenario will be the same for each offeror and will not be provided until the conclusion of the oral presentation. The Contracting Officer will contact each offeror to schedule their oral presentation as soon as possible after the proposal due date. Oral presentations may be recorded and/or videotaped by the Government. If oral presentations are conducted, the technical and management evaluations will be based on both the written proposal and oral presentation.

M.8 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

For award purposes, in addition to an offeror’s response to the base period requirements, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal in response to all RFP option periods. Evaluation of the option periods will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

633 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 880, Washington, DC 20004-2902 Voice: (202) 220-5730 Fax: (202) 220-5711 image1.png oleObject1.bin image10.png oleObject2.bin