Attachment G - NCESS Evaluation Criteria.pdf

ATTACHMENT G – NCESS EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following criteria will be used as the basis for evaluating the proposals submitted:

Sub-factor 1. – Quality of Technical Approach (25 points)

The offeror’s general responsiveness and technical approach toward the nature, magnitude, variety, details and problems of the work to be performed.

The offeror’s ability to show a clear understanding of the substantive areas of work.

The offeror’s ability to demonstrate its knowledge of NCES methods of operation, survey databases and studies, including elementary/secondary and postsecondary issues, and familiarity with education data, and literature and other related databases.

Demonstration that the offeror understands the information and communication needs of NCES and its cooperatives and possesses an in-depth knowledge of the issues involved in the various areas of work.

Thoroughness of the approach for carrying out the specific tasks and the broader scope of work requested in the PWS, including discussion of any foreseen issues or problems, and the means employed to overcome or minimize difficulties.

Sub-factor 2. – Qualifications, Utilization, and Commitment of Staff (25 points)

Relevant experience and education/training of proposed project staff in such areas as:

Conference/meeting planning and implementation, offeror shall demonstrate the ability of staff to handle numerous meetings in a short period of time;

provide logistical support; provide technical expertise as facilitators/recorders at various meeting; and provide post-meeting follow-up including reimbursement and preparation of final reports in a timely manner;

Education research and analysis, offeror shall indicate technical expertise of proposed staff/consultants, their commitment to the project, list publications/papers/research relevant to the two cooperative areas

(elementary/secondary, postsecondary);

Technical and descriptive report writing;

Training program development and implementation;

Designing, conducting, and/or evaluating feasibility studies; knowledge of

IES/NCES statistical and style standards and the ability to apply them; and

Providing technical assistance;

Senior staff shall be knowledgeable about issues in educational policy, and have demonstrated substantive knowledge and experience with those issues in working with elementary/secondary, and postsecondary data and communities.

The offeror shall be rated on a history of productivity of principal and junior staff and of their completing statistically based research projects with products of high quality on time and within budget. The offeror shall be rated on staff’s experience of preparing materials used by policymakers.

The offeror shall be rated on the ability to write clearly, as evidenced by the proposal and by examples of past research projects, which can be cited or submitted.

Sub-factor 3. – Quality of the Management and Staffing Plan (20 points)

Demonstration that the project management and staffing plan will result in timely and quality products delivered within budget, including clear lines of responsibility, corporate oversight, subcontractors and consultants, including the feasibility of plans for involving outside experts and/or subcontractors.

Corporate experience in all activities described in the performance statement of work as well as similar activities.

Access to literature, facilities and equipment, statistical software, computer capability, and when appropriate, experts and consultants.

Appropriate methods for matching demonstrated skills to subtask requirements, including consultants and subcontractor staff.

Sub-factor 4. – Past Performance (15 points)

Proposals will be evaluated by the amount of relevant experience demonstrated, either with

Department of Education contracts, contracts with other agencies, or work in the private sector.

Offerors demonstrating experience with a variety of projects 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 PWS will be ranked more highly than those with experience in fewer areas. Proposals will also be evaluated by the quality of the past performance reports created by the agency for which they worked.

Sub-factor 5. – Corporate Expertise, Capability, and Oversight (15 points)

Proposals will be evaluated 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 (e.g.

sufficient office space, equipment, billing and monthly reporting system, facilities, and travel system used).

Total (100 points)

The requirement will be pursuant to source selection procedures as outlined in FAR 15.101 (Best

Value Continuum). The government anticipates the award of a fixed-price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. Quality factors are more important than price, cost and other factors considered. However, as technical factors become more equal, price becomes a more important factor.