Evaluation_Criteria.docx

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items (January 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Although price is an important factor, technical merit is significantly more important than price. As technical merit becomes more equal, price will become a more significant factor. The Contracting Officer will determine whether any difference in technical merit is worth the difference in price. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Quality of Technical Capability (40 pts.)

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 full scope of technical requirements anticipated to accomplish the performance objectives, tasks and requirements as specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The Technical Capability Factor is subdivided into the following two sub-factors of equal importance:

· Technical Understanding (20 pts): The offeror shall 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 specifications in 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.

· Soundness of Technical Approach (20 pts): Proposal describes the offerors proposed approach to comply with each of the performance objectives, tasks and requirements as specified in the PWS. 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.

Quality of Management Approach (30 pts.)

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 standard business practices, including macro-level business processes, accounting/estimating cost control, and project management.

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.

The Management Approach Factor is subdivided into three sub-factors of equal importance:

· Organizational Structure (10 pts): 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.

· Quality Control (10 pts): The offeror's proposal demonstrates an administrative framework satisfactory for maintaining quality control over management support, operations, sustainment, documentation, training, and enhancement of the Next Generation Professional Learning Portal, Content Integration and Technical Assistance Contract. The proposed quality control processes and methods are logical, effective, easily monitored and ensure high quality performance. 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.

· Personnel (10 pts): 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 onsite 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.

Quality of Organizational Capability and Experience (30 points) Organizational capability and 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 Organizational capability and experience will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s past performance on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to assess performance risk for this RFP. The Government will evaluate each offeror's organizational capability and experience based on the information submitted by the offeror, as well as information that the Government collects by itself. In addition, Organizational capability and experience 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.

Each performance risk assessment of the sub-factors listed below 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.

The Organizational Capability and Experience evaluation factor has the following three sub-factors, which are of equal importance:

· Technical Quality (10 pts): 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.

· Timely Delivery of Services (10 pts): 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.

· Concern for the Customer‘s Interests/ Reasonableness of Business Behavior (10 pts): 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 must also demonstrate a willingness to cooperate and help in problem solving.

Proposal Risk:

In addition to the numerical rating of the technical merit of the offeror‘s proposal, the proposal risk ratings assess the risks and weaknesses associated with each offeror‘s proposed approach to performing the requirements stated in the RFP. This rating is an overall assessment derived from the technical evaluation and is driven by each of the sub-factors with the technical factor. Therefore, in assessing proposal risk, the offeror‘s proposed approach will be rated as follows:

Price

The business proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s price is fair and reasonable and if the business proposal is commensurate with their proposed technical approach. Specifically, the business proposal shall contain complete information in sufficient detail for the Government to make a price realism determination. Realism means the costs in the offeror’s proposal are: (a) realistic for the work to be performed; (b) reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and (c) are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal. The Contracting Officer may reject a proposal if a negative determination is made, or if proposed prices are found not to be reasonable.

(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 without further 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.