21Jul11 Atch3 - Eval Criteria .pdf

ILAB-OCFT Governmental Auditing and Attestation Services Solicitation Nr: DOL111RP21295 Attachment 3 - Evaluation Criteria

ATTACHMENT 3

52.212-2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

08 July 2011

ILAB-OCFT Advisory & Assistance Services Governmental Auditing and Attestation

BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a competitive best value source selection utilizing FAR Part 12, Commercial Items, and FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. The resultant award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is considered the most advantageous to the Government, taking into account non-price and price-related factors.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest to do so.

(a) Evaluation Factors/Sub-factors: The following factors and sub-factors, listed in descending order of importance, shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor I - Technical Approach Sub-factor 1: Experience Sub-factor 2: Understanding of the requirement Sub-factor 3: Key Personnel Sub-factor 4: Quality Control Plan

Factor II - Past Performance Factor III - Price

Technical Approach is more important than past performance; when combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract withoutfurther action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

FACTOR I -–TECHNICAL APPROACH

The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation and whether the offeror’s methods and approach to meeting the solicitation requirements provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion within the required schedule.

Subfactor 1 -–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. In addressing this sub-factor, the proposal must:

1. Describe your experience with attestation engagements and audits of international Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and international organizations.

2. Describe your experience conducing training related to attestation engagements and audits of NGOs and international organizations.

3. Describe your experience related to audit resolution of attestation engagements and audits.

4. Describe your experience with Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) reporting.

Subfactor 2 -–Understanding the Requirement– The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). In addressing this sub-factor, the proposal must:

1. Submit a proposal that demonstrates its understanding of the work described in Section

1.2 of the PWS. The proposal shall be written in English.

2. Demonstrate thorough understanding of the following:

The attestation engagement process that meets U.S. Government Auditing Standards as established in the GAO Yellow Book;

The requirements needed in developing an accountability review program; and

The reporting requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA).

Subfactor 3 -–Key Personnel–The Government will evaluate the experience and qualifications of all contractor personnel.

The offeror’s proposal shall include curriculum vitae (CV)/Resumes for key personnel. CVs shall provide sufficient information for judging the quality and competence of proposed personnel, including experience and credentials.

Subfactor 4 –Quality Control Plan–The Government will evaluate the Quality Control Plan (QCP) that details how the Offeror intends to monitor, inspect, and correct deficiencies for the requirements of the PWS.

Factor I- Technical, will be rated using the following Adjectival Scale.

ADJECTIVE DEFINITION

Outstanding

A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with extensive detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows a thorough understanding of the problems and offers numerous significant strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low degree of risk of failing to meet the Government’s requirements.

Good

A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements withadequate detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows an understanding of the problems and offers some significant strengths or numerous minor strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low to moderate degree of risk of failing to meet the Government’s requirements.

Acceptable

A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with minimal detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows a minimal understanding of the problems, with an overall moderate to high degree of risk of failing to meet the Government’s requirements.

Unacceptable

A proposal that contains a major error(s), omission(s) or deficiency(ies) that indicates a lack of understanding of the problems or an approach that cannot be expected to meet requirements or involves a very high risk; and none of these conditions can be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

FACTOR II -–PAST PERFORMANCE

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 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.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision

Recency: For all contract references submitted, the contract is currently active or was completed within the last three years

Relevancy: Performance being considered must have a logical connection to the work described in the solicitation. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to such aspects as the service similarity, service complexity, contract type, and magnitude. Magnitude defines not only the scope but project similarity to the instant requirement. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor.

The evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

In evaluating performance information, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The following table defines the ratings that will be used in making the relevance determination

Relevance Ratings Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities than this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

In evaluating past performance information, consideration will be given to the following regarding each offeror's overall performance record:

The offeror’s record of conformance to contract specifications and standards of good workmanship.

The offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance.

The offeror’s history for reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction, timely award and management of contract costs, subcontracts, and whether the offeror met any applicable subcontracting goals

Performance Confidence Ratings

Each proposal will be assessed a rating at an overall factor level after evaluating offerors' performance records. Each offeror will be assessed one of the following ratings. This process is subjective in nature and will be based on the performance information collected.

Substantial Confidence/Low Risk:

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has ahigh expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence/Low Risk:

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence/Medium Risk:

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence/High Risk:

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has noexpectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence/Unknown Risk:

No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned

FACTOR III -–PRICE

The Government anticipates establishing reasonableness based on adequate competition. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to a higher priced offeror if that offeror is assessed a higher performance confidence rating than the lower-priced offeror. In such cases, the Contracting Officer will make an integrated best value assessment to determine if the merits of the trade-off in price advantageous to the Government. If only one proposal is received, the Contracting Officer may request additional information to determine price reasonableness.