Atch 3-ILAB1 Eval Criteria

ILAB-OTLA Contract Research Program 2011 Solicitation DOL111RP21274 Research Supporting Livelihoods, Working Conditions or Worker Rights Page 1 of 3

ATTACHMENT 3

52-212-2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This FAR Part 12, Commercial Items, acquisition will utilize best value procedures in making the award decision. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced Offeror if that Offeror is considered to provide the overall best value to the Government.

The Government intends to award one or more awards without discussions with respective Offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

This solicitation may result in multiple awards relative to proposed research topics.

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following factors and sub-factors:

Factor 1 – Technical

Sub-factor 1 - Understanding of the Requirement

Sub-factor 2 - Experience

Sub-factor 3 - Key Personnel (Curriculum Vitae/Resumes)

Past Performance

Price

Technical is more important that past performance. Technical and past performance combined are significantly more important than price. Within Factor I, Technical, Sub-factor 1 (Understanding of the Requirement) is the most important, followed by Sub-factor 2 (Experience). Sub-factor 3 (Key Personnel) is the least important sub-factor.

Step 1: Initially, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals assigning ratings of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, or Unacceptable.

• Understanding the Requirement: The Government will utilize the technical proposal, in addition to other information provided with offeror, to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed.

o The Offeror will demonstrate that the proposed research question is directly relevant to ILAB and the specific research topics described in the SOO (section 4); provide clear and convincing indication of the innovation and/or impact of the proposed work; and indicate how the work proposed contributes to the existing body of research on this topic.

o The proposal shall demonstrate that the Offeror’s research methodology for carrying out research is appropriate, feasible, and rigorous, and shall discuss possible methodological challenges and potential solutions.

o When proposed research involves direct, original research involving human subjects, the

Offeror must describe the review procedures that will be applied to ensure that the privacy and welfare of human subjects are adequately protected.

o Presentation of the proposed research methodology shall be clear, coherent and internally consistent.

o The proposal shall reflect writing skills sufficient to produce a paper of a caliber equal to an article in a peer-reviewed economic journal such as those listed in EconLit.

o The proposal shall be written in English.

• Experience - The Government will evaluate work experience submitted by the Offeror of a similar nature, scope, complexity, and difficulty to that which will be performed under the prospective contract contemplated by this solicitation.

• Experience may be demonstrated by publication record, completed research projects and other related work.

• The Offeror’s proposal shall also demonstrate the researcher’s familiarity with proposed research sources (including data) that will be used to complete the research.

• The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate how the proposal fits into an existing or contemplated research program of the researcher.

• Key Personnel . The Government will evaluate the experience and qualifications of all contractor personnel

The Offeror’s proposal shall include curriculum vitae (CV) for key personnel (i.e., lead researchers).

CVs shall provide sufficient information for judging the quality and competence of proposed personnel, including experience, credentials, and publication history among other qualifications.

Step 2: Past performance information will be reviewed for Offerors whose technical approach is determined technically acceptable.

Factor 2: - Past performance Information

Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on each Offeror based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving research efforts that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of High Confidence, Significant Confidence, Little Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in the Instructions to Offerors section of the solicitation.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will also be also be considered. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Factor 3: - Price

Step 3: Price Evaluation. Price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness using the techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). Competition is anticipated to serve as the basis for establishing fairness and reasonableness of price. The total price will be calculated by computing unit prices multiplied times unit quantities to determine total amounts for each line item. The total amounts for each line item will then be summed to establish the total contract value.

Integrated Assessment Award Decision

Step 4: Award Selection. The final step in this best value source selection evaluation is an integrated assessment performed by the Source Selection Authority (Contracting Officer). The purpose of the assessment is to determine which Offeror provides the overall best value to the Government.

Pursuant to FAR 15.308, the SSA’s decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment.

The SSA decision may result in the determination to make award to the Offeror assessed a higher technical rating (e.g., outstanding) and deemed other than the lowest-priced offeror. In doing so, the SSA has determined that Offeror provides the overall best value to the Government, considering all factors.

(End of Provision)