SOURCE_SELECTION_INFORMATION_(2).docx

(SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 3.104)

SAMPLE EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD FOR SERVICES

1. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. Conduct of Acquisition: This acquisition shall be conducted using the policies and procedures in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13 – Simplified Acquisition Procedures. The government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation scheme, factors and criteria in this section of the Request for Quotations (RFQ). The Contracting Officer (CO) shall select an offeror for task order award using the best value analysis described in this section of the RFQ. Task order award will be made to the responsible contractor whose proposal is responsive to this RFQ 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 Objectives (SOO). 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 and weaknesses of each offeror’s proposal in accordance with evaluation criteria stated in the RFQ. 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. Proposal evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the evaluation scheme and criteria stated below. 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 (cost/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 cost/price. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost/price to the Government to obtain only slightly improved performance or past performance.

c. Number of Awards: The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this RFQ. However, the Government reserves the right to award more than one task order or to make no award at all.

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 (Management Approach, Technical Solution, Transition)

2. Past Performance

3. Cost/Price The Technical Evaluation Factor is significantly more important than the combined evaluations for Past Performance and Cost/Price. However, the Government will not make a task order 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 Cost/Price is more likely to be the determining factor for award.

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION (MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL APPROACH, TRANSITION)

(a) The following categorical descriptions shall be used to derive an adjectival evaluation of the offeror’s technical proposal:

I. Exceptional: The technical proposal demonstrates the offeror’s complete understanding of all of the requirements, and proposes innovative, cost effective approaches or solutions that will exceed EOIR’s requirements using standard industry practices, technologies, methodologies, and processes. Proposals evaluated with exceptional ratings possess multiple significant strengths, no significant weaknesses, no deficiencies and only minor weaknesses. Exceptional proposals possess no omissions. The offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in superior achievement of the Government’s objectives with minimal risk.

II. Excellent: The technical proposal demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of all of the requirements, and proposes innovative, cost effective approaches or solutions that meet EOIR’s requirements using standard industry practices, technologies, methodologies, and processes. Proposals evaluated with excellent ratings possess significant strengths, no significant weaknesses, no deficiencies and several minor weaknesses. The offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in the achievement of the Government’s objectives with low risk.

III. Adequate: The technical proposal demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the technical requirement, and proposes an approach that will meet EOIR’s requirements using commercially acceptable industry practices, technologies, methodologies, and processes. The offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, introduce moderate risk but are considered likely to produce performance results meeting the Government’s objectives. An Adequate rating indicates that the proposed solution contains a number of strengths, but also some weaknesses.

IV. Unacceptable: The technical proposal demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the technical requirement; the offeror’s technical approach is not technically feasible or is based upon outdated or risky technologies, methodologies, and questionable processes. The offeror failed to meet minimum requirements specified in the SOW. Proposals with unacceptable ratings have few or no strengths and several significant weaknesses and/or minor deficiencies, minor weaknesses and omissions. An unacceptable proposal fails to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling the Government’s requirements. An unacceptable proposal is one in which an unacceptable risk of performance failure exists.

(b) The following categorical descriptions shall be used to derive an adjectival evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance:

I. Exceptional: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction with minimal risk.

II. Excellent: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government can expect successful performance and customer satisfaction with low risk.

III. Adequate: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction with moderate risk.

IV. Unacceptable: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction. The offeror’s performance record suggests an unacceptable degree of risk.

V. Unknown: No performance record is identifiable. This is a neutral weighting. It does not hinder nor help the offeror.

(c) The Government will evaluate Cost/Price to ensure it is complete, reasonable and realistic by verifying that all prices/labor rates and cost to the Government are in accordance with the offeror’s GSA FSS contract. Discounts offered by each offeror to its FSS rates will be evaluated. Each offeror’s level of effort and mix of labor proposed will be evaluated to determine that the total price proposed is fair and reasonable. An adjectival evaluation of the offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will not be conducted.

(d) The Government will develop a separate adjectival rating for Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical based upon the three (3) subfactors- Content Requirements, Timeliness and Responsiveness). Each subfactor will receive a separate adjectival rating.

4. THE GOVERNMENT WILL EVALUATE ALL PROPOSALS AGAINST THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: The evaluation will be based on both the offerors written proposal and oral presentation, if applicable.

4.1 EVALUTION FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL (Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance).

4.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Content requirements

The Government will assess the offeror’s understanding of the program requirements and ability to manage all aspects of the task order in an efficient and effective manner that will achieve the program and mission requirements set forth in the SOW. The evaluation will also consider the degree to which the management approach provides for an established procedure/process directly related to meeting or exceeding mission critical performance requirements. The evaluation will also consider the offeror’s approach to providing human analysts with an understanding of how to best address EOIR’s subject areas of interest, and show a process for eliminating redundant and irrelevant news. The evaluation will also include the offeror’s ability to include television broadcasts, as relevant, and not only links to stories appearing on the websites of local broadcasters, as many of those stories never aired.

The evaluation will verify that the offeror will use human analysts, as opposed to only an automated service, to find and review articles and broadcasts from all major (and most smaller) daily newspapers, national and local television, newsweeklies, magazines and journals, Internet sites, specialty press, etc.; determine which aspects of each story to be included are most relevant to EOIR; edit for content and proper grammar/spelling; create a synoposis of an issue covered in multiple outlets that reads as one story with multiple links (one for each covered outlet). The synopses should provide EOIR officials with a sense of how widely various story elements were run and of the general tonality of the coverage.

The evaluation will further consider the ability of the offeror to adapt the presentation of the news briefing following any such necessary consultation with EOIR staff. The ability of the offeror’s organizational structure to respond to rapidly emerging issues and conditions, including the method by which issues will be evaluated and addressed and the implementation of risk mitigation strategies to maintain performance, quality, schedule, and mission requirements within the proposed price/cost will be evaluated.

4.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Timeliness

The evaluation will consider the offeror’s ability to provide the briefing each weekday of the year by 8 a.m. Eastern Time, except on federal holidays (including no more than two days at each of Thanksgiving and Christmas); include news from weekends and federal holidays in the briefing immediately following those days; include a table of contents organized by subject matter; be available via an IP-protected website (including a searchable archive) or other secure delivery as dictated to vendor by the EOIR; include traditional email, mobile-friendly email, and Kindle; be available to any and all employees of EOIR, exclusively for EOIR’s internal use.

The news included in the briefing must be current, meaning the 8 a.m. briefing will include stories appearing that morning in the nation’s newspapers and broadcast in the preceding 24 hours by the Nation’s national and local television news outlets. A significant factor in the evaluation will be that the offeror demonstrate an ability to maintain an extremely low incidence of missed or day-old stories, typographical errors, and broken links.

4.1.3 Subfactor 3 - Responsiveness

The evaluation will include the offeror’s ability to provide a staff member (s) who can be the principal point of contact for the agency and who has an understanding of the agency’s mission and can, therefore, determine appropriate stories and train other staff analysts accordingly.

4.2 EVALUATION FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation will examine how the offeror’s past and present performance validates anticipated future performance in areas such as customer satisfaction, leadership, adherence to cost, schedule and performance baselines, and resolution of unanticipated problems for EOIR. The past performance evaluation will examine the offeror’s actual performance on a minimum of three (3) similar effort. 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.

In conducting the past performance 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 performance of any proposed subcontractors and team members and include the results in its assessment.

4.3 EVALUATION FACTOR 3 – COST/PRICE

The Government will evaluate the proposed total cost/price of the 12 months of the performance period to determine that the cost/price is valid, realistic and consistent with the prices and labor rates included in the offeror’s FSS contract and cost is complete and reasonable.

The cost/price proposal will be evaluated for consistency and understanding of the project requirements and the offeror’s PWS and Quality Assurance Plan in response to this RFQ and SOW.

5. SAMPLE OF WORK

The offeror is to provide a sample work for the date of August 24, 2016. The sample may be a sample of work done for another client. The work will be examined for timeliness of the articles, correctness of the grammar, and usability of email’s hyperlinks and keywords.

6. 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 RFQ option periods. Evaluation of the option periods will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.