ATTACHMENT H_SECTIONM.docx

ATTACHMENT H

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 INTRODUCTION:

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror's capabilities and proposals for the Records Exchange Advice, Communication, and Technical Support (REACTS) contract. The Government will compare each offeror's capabilities and proposal elements against predetermined measures of merit related to the Government's requirement defined herein.

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this address: http://www.arnet.gov/far/

52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es): http://www.arnet.gov/far/

M-2 BASIS FOR AWARD:

M-2.1 This Request for Proposals (RFP) is for a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR Part 15.3) and any Department of Education acquisition policy documents. The Government’s primary objective in awarding a contract is to make a “BEST VALUE” decision in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, tradeoff process. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection evaluation team’s assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or overall management approach, and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

M-2.2 The Government will evaluate each proposal to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, a sound approach to satisfying those requirements, the capability to perform in accordance with the proposal, and the ability to work in partnership with the Government to support the Office of Migrant Education (OME), Department of Education (ED).

M-2.3 The award decision will be based on evaluation of each offeror’s complete proposal submission including: (1) Technical Proposal including Oral Presentation, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Cost/Price Proposal. Technical Proposals and Past Performance will be evaluated and rated by the Government. Cost/Price Proposals will be evaluated for cost reasonableness and realism, but will not be rated. The Government’s evaluation of the Technical Proposal will be done separately from the evaluation of the Cost/Price Proposal.

M-2.4 The Government reserves the right to limit for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). If the Contracting Officer decides that an offeror's proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

M-2.5 The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from a cost and technical standpoint. However, to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, it may be necessary to conduct discussions. If discussions are necessary due to perceived weaknesses or other issues, which must be addressed before award, they will be conducted with only those offerors determined to be within the competitive range. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of the Contracting Officer’s judgment. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussions.

M-2.6 The Government reserves the right to hold oral presentations with firms who have been determined to be in the competitive range. The offeror will be notified no later than 7 calendar days prior to the oral presentation date.

M-2.7 If discussions are conducted, final proposal revisions will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. Offerors are advised that unsupported final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:

M-3.1 Evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. Proposals will be evaluated against the Government’s following factors listed in descending order of importance. The Past Performance factor is more important than any of the other three factors. Management Approach and Technical Capability Experience are approximately of equal importance but each is substantially more important than Cost/Price. Technical Capability, Management Approach, and Past Performance Experience when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Where evaluations of the non-cost factors of Technical Capability, Management Approach, and Past Performance Experience are virtually the same, Cost may become the determining award factor.

Factor 1 – Technical Capability Factor 2 – Management Approach Factor 3 – Past Performance Experience Factor 4 – Cost/Price

M-3.2 The Government will evaluate the offerors’ capability through the utilization of both the written proposal and other written information and oral presentations. The Government will evaluate and assign a qualitative rating to the Technical Capability and Management Approach factors and sub-factors for each offeror's proposal. In addition, the Government will evaluate the risks associated with the offeror's technical proposal and assign a proposal risk rating. The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance and assign a performance risk rating. The evaluation will not take any information contained in the Executive Summary submitted in response to L-17 into consideration in the evaluation of Factors 1, 2, 3, or 4.

DEFINITION

M-3.3 Factors:

M-3.3.1 Factor 1 – Technical Capability: The evaluation of the Technical Capability factor will be a composite evaluation using all of the sub-factors associated with this factor, and will assess the extent to which an offeror's proposal demonstrates a sound, practical methodology for meeting the overall requirements associated with the PWS. The Technical Capability factor and each of its sub-factors will receive an overall adjectival and proposal risk assessment rating. The Technical Capability Factor is subdivided into the following four sub-factors of equal importance:

M-3.3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1 – Technical Understanding: The offeror will demonstrate in the written proposal and oral presentation an understanding of the work. In making the evaluation, the Government will consider an offeror's knowledge of the PWS in terms of the concept, purpose, importance, salient operational procedures, inherent problems and ideas for solutions. The evaluation will include an appraisal of the contractor's knowledge of the PWS’s relationship to other factors considered necessary to present an understanding and contractor's ability to accomplish these services.

M-3.3.1.2 – Sub-Factor 2 – Soundness of Approach: Proposal describes the proposed approach to comply with each of the requirements specified in the PWS. The proposal is consistent with the stated goals and objectives. The proposed approach of ensuring the achievement of timely and acceptable performance is well documented and sound. Milestone and/or phasing charts illustrate a logical sequence of proposed events.

M-3.3.2 Factor 2 – Management Approach: Offerors’ will be evaluated on responses to the requirements of Section L.19. The evaluation of the Management Approach factor will be a composite evaluation using all of the sub-factors associated with this factor, and will assess the extent to which an offeror's proposal demonstrates knowledge of communication processes and procedures, and standard business practices, including macro-level business processes, accounting/estimating cost control, and project management. The Management Approach factor and each of its sub-factors will receive an overall adjectival and proposal risk assessment rating. The Management Approach Factor is subdivided into four sub-factors of equal importance:

M-3.3.2.1 Sub-Factor 1 – Organizational Structure: Organizational chart clearly identifies management, design, and implementation teams as well as key positions. Lines of authority and communications between home office, design and implementation teams and key positions are clear, logical and effective. Responses to changes in customer needs, tasking, and workload requirements, including appropriateness of the organizational structure in relationship to the ED environment and the approach for accommodating short term increases and decreases in workload are identified.

M-3.3.2.2 Sub-Factor 2 – Personnel: The contractor and/or its partners shall be experienced and knowledgeable regarding the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX), the Migrant Student Records Transfer System (MSRTS) and the National Migrant Records Exchange Initiative’s goals and objectives. Qualification, availability, company affiliation, corporate experience, roles and responsibilities of the key personnel proposed and the qualifications proposed by the offerors to fulfill other personnel requirements under the contract are clearly identified. The adequacy of all personnel proposed and their planned utilization will be evaluated based on the offeror's manpower utilization matrix. Any conflict between what is presented in the manpower utilization matrix and other parts of the offeror's proposal may result in a reduced evaluation rating. The autonomy of the on-site Project Manager, including lines of authority, contracting authority, hiring/removal plans and employee incentives is demonstrated. Management and staffing practices, including proposed recruiting methods and training plans and career development activities are identified. The staffing and retention plan, including the compensation package for professional employees, will be evaluated to determine the offeror's ability to provide and retain qualified personnel in sufficient numbers to perform the work under the contract. An unrealistic compensation package will be deemed to show a lack of understanding of the work to be performed.

The resume evaluation will be based on the extent to which key personnel resumes meet or exceed the education and experience required by the labor qualifications in Section C. Key personnel shall have letters of commitment in the proposal.

The percentage of time each staff member will contribute to the program is adequately identified. The extent to which outside consultants or specialists will be used is documented and evidence of their availability is provided.

M-3.3.2.3 Sub-Factor 3 – Teaming/Partnering Plan: The offeror's support of the United States policy regarding the utilization of Small and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns will be evaluated. Since this procurement is unrestricted, offerors shall propose a Small Business subcontracting goal of at least 23% percent of the total contract value. The offeror’s plan will be evaluated based on the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds one or more of the following Department subcontracting goals:

Small business (SB) – 37.3% 8(a)/small disadvantaged (SDB) – 5% Women-owned (WO) – 5% Service-disabled veteran-owned (SDVO) – 3% Historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) – 3%

Proposal identifies policies and procedures to ensure effective management of subcontractors, quality workmanship and timely completion. Methods and criteria describe consideration of subcontractor’s previous experience, present capabilities, and quality of previous jobs. A poorly defined management approach regarding the proposed subcontractors, or a large number of subcontractors, or a poorly structured partnership/joint venture, or a high proportion of contingency hires will result in the assessment of increased risk and/or a reduced evaluation rating. Subcontracting/teaming arrangements, including proposed prime/subcontractor’s relationships, tasks to be performed by subcontractors, negotiated methods of performance monitoring, and authority/autonomy delegated to subcontractors by the prime contractor will be clearly identified.

M-3.3.2.4 Sub-Factor 4 – Quality Control: The offeror’s proposal demonstrates an administrative framework satisfactory for maintaining quality control over the implementation and operations of the project. The proposed design and implementation quality control processes and methods are logical, effective and ensure only high quality materials and workmanship is accepted. The tools/methods to be used to identify and correct personnel that are performing poorly or producing substandard work are clearly defined. Tools/methods described are adequate, logical, and reflect a sound management approach. Process described, or checklists used, ensure designs are adequately reviewed for architectural enterprise compatibility, system capability, operability, maintainability and sustainable features.

M-3.3.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance Experience: Past performance experience is a measure of the degree to which an offeror, as an organization, has satisfied its customers and complied with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Past Performance will be evaluated to assess the offerors’ past performance on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to assess performance risk for this RFP. Past performance is assessed and is assigned a narrative rating in the evaluation. The Government will evaluate each offeror's past performance based on the information submitted by the offeror, as well as information that the Government collects by itself. An offeror with good past performance will enhance the evaluation value. An offeror with poor past performance will potentially decrease the offer's value to the Government, which will be reflected in it's relative standing among offerors. An offeror with no past performance history will receive a neutral rating. In addition, past performance will be evaluated by relative importance of the information sources: U.S. Government agencies, Other Government agencies including local governments, and the private sector, in that order. The Government may call or visit the offeror's references reported hereunder to examine their assessment of the offeror's performance. The Past Performance Experience evaluation factor has the following five sub-factors, which are of equal importance:

M-3.3.3.1 Sub-Factor 1 –Technical Quality: Evaluation will be based on the extent, depth and quality of recent corporate experience in performing the same or similar work. The offeror will be evaluated on compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy of reports, and technical excellence to include Quality awards/certificates.

M-3.3.3.2 Sub-Factor 2 – Timely Delivery of Services: The offeror will be evaluated on meeting milestones, reliability, responsiveness to technical direction, deliverables completed on-time, and adherence to contract schedules including contract administration.

M-3.3.3.3 Sub-Factor 3 – Reasonableness of its Prices, Costs, and Claims: The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to perform within or below budget, use of cost efficiencies, relationship of negotiated costs to actual costs, submission of reasonably priced change proposals, and providing current, accurate, and complete billing in a timely manner.

M-3.3.3.4 Sub-Factor 4 – Reasonableness of its Business Behavior: A willingness to cooperate and helpfulness in solving problems is demonstrated. The Government will appraise each offeror's work records to determine whether, during the past five years, the offeror has had the opportunity to learn about relevant work processes and procedures and about the nature, difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with performing the work that will be required under the prospective contract. The Government will not attribute to an offeror the individual experience of the offeror's current or prospective employees or the experience of subcontractors representing a small portion of the proposed work. Particular emphasis will be placed on the degree to which the offeror's management can demonstrate a concise relationship between their past performance data and their systemic improvements. Evaluation of the factual evidence will verify that the offeror has adopted and applied the principles and techniques of continuous systemic improvement in managing its total business to improve upon past performance.

M-3.3.3.5 Sub-Factor 5 – Concern for the Customer’s Interests: The offeror will be evaluated on cooperative and proactive behavior with the technical representative(s) and Contracting Officer, flexibility, responsiveness to inquiries, problem resolution and customer satisfaction. The offeror will be evaluated on satisfaction of the technical monitors with the overall performance, and final product and services. Evaluation will include a determination of the offeror’s commitment to customer satisfaction.

M-3.3.3.6 Each performance risk assessment of the sub-factors listed above will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken and the overall work record. The assessment of performance risk is not intended to be the product of a mechanical or mathematical analysis of an offeror's performance on a list of contracts, but rather the product of subjective judgment of the Government after it considers all available, relevant and recent information.

In performing the Past Performance evaluation, the offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings:

M-3.3.4 Factor 4 – Cost: The offeror's proposed cost will be evaluated on the basis of cost realism and reasonableness. This evaluation may include, but is not limited to, consideration of actual rates being paid for similar services under other Government contracts, historical data, trend analysis, or other rate check or audit information. The Government will evaluate the realism of proposed cost/price by assessing the compatibility of proposed cost/price with proposal scope and effort. For the cost to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency. The evaluation will be performed on the total proposed estimated cost (including fees), to include phase-in, basic performance period, and option years. FAR 52.217-5, "Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990)" is hereby incorporated by reference. Evaluation of option periods will not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Travel/Per Diem and Material/Equipment costs will be evaluated plus applicable indirect costs.

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of proposed cost/price and target ceilings for the option periods by assessing the acceptability of the offeror's methodology used in developing the cost/price estimates. For the cost to be reasonable, in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business.

Cost/price proposals shall be evaluated for completeness by assessing the responsiveness of the proposed cost/price by assessing the level of detail the offeror provided cost data for all requirements in the PWS, and assessing the traceability of estimates. For the cost data to be complete, the offeror, or their subcontractors or vendors, must provide all the data necessary to support the offer.

M-4 REJECTION AND CORRECTION OF OFFERS:

M-4.1 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M-4.2 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. For a proposal to result in an awardable contract, the proposal must at least meet all technical requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and include all required certifications.

[END OF SECTION M]

M-3