ED-SAT - Attch B - Evaluation Criteria.doc

ATTACHMENT B

U.S. Department of Education

Streamlined Acquisition Tool (ED-SAT)

Proposal Evaluation Criteria As indicated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the ED-SAT will consist of a number of different pools of blanket purchase agreements (BPAs). Proposals for each pool will be evaluated independently of those in the other pools; therefore offerors must submit a complete proposal for each pool in which they would like to compete. More details regarding the contents of proposals can be found in the “Instructions to Offerors” document, Attachment C.

Consistently across all pools, proposals will be evaluated using a best-value approach based on tradeoffs. There will be three primary factors: past performance, technical capability, and price. Past performance and technical capability will be the most important evaluation criteria, and they will be equally weighted. Price is less important than past performance or technical capability, but as past performance and technical capability become closer to equal, price becomes more important.

While the relative importance of the three proposal sections will be evaluated consistently across all pools, the proposals submitted for each pool will only be evaluated against the others within that pool. Please note that this document contains the criteria that will be used to award base BPAs; each purchase order issued under the ED-SAT program will have its own individual list of evaluation criteria.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance will be evaluated on a 30-point scale, as follows:

· Amount of Experience (10 Points): Proposals will be evaluated in this sub-category by the amount of relevant experience demonstrated, either with Department of Education contracts, contracts with other agencies, or work in the private sector.

· Breadth of Experience (10 Points): Proposals will be evaluated in this sub-category by the variety of experience within the relevant pool. Offerors demonstrating experience with a variety of project types within a given pool will be ranked more highly than those whose experience has been more narrowly focused. In addition, offerors demonstrating experience with a broader array of educational issues (as identified in the “Instructions to Offerors” document) will be ranked more highly than those with experience in fewer areas.

· Quality of Experience (10 Points): Proposals will be evaluated in this sub-category by the quality of the past performance reports created by the agency for which they worked.

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Technical capability will be evaluated on a 30-point scale, as follows:

· Demonstrated Understanding of the PWS (10 Points): Proposals will be evaluated in this sub-category on the basis of a demonstrated understanding of and familiarity with the issues, approaches, and challenges inherent in the work described in the PWS. The soundness of technical approach will be evaluated based on how well the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the purpose and context of the PWS, and the major issues and objectives involved in such work.

· Staff Qualifications (10 Points): Proposals will be evaluated in this sub-category on the basis of the quality of the offeror’s staffing, both with respect to specific individuals identified as potential project directors, and with respect to the qualifications and capabilities of the staff as a whole. The technical qualifications of proposed staff will be evaluated based on offeror’s demonstration that they have experience and expertise in the program areas, policy issues, and methodologies necessary to undertake projects within this requirement. In addition, project management staff will be evaluated on their experience monitoring contract budgets and controlling business, adhering to project schedules, ensuring the quality and timeliness of contract deliverables, and directing and managing projects.

· Corporate Expertise, Capability, and Oversight (10 Points): Proposals will be evaluated in this sub-category on the basis of evidence of a strong corporate commitment and oversight. Some examples of considerations in this area are management plans, approaches to problem solving and communication, and a demonstration of adequate infrastructure (sufficient office space, equipment, etc.).