Attachment_H_-_NPSAS-16_Evaluation_Criteria.doc

ATTACHMENT H

ATTACHMENT H

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

2015-16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS 2016)

& Postsecondary Longitudinal Studies

(ED-IES-13-R-0011)

The U.S. Department of Education will base the source selection decision for this procurement on the following evaluation criteria using a 120-point scale. Technical merit will be determined on the basis of the following evaluation factors:

FACTOR

A. Approach to study designs and data collections (35 Points)

· Demonstrates experience in (listed in order of importance):

· participating in large scale data collections drawing from multiple modes including, but not limited to, administrative data (from multiple sources), web-based interviews, computer assisted interviews, and personal interviews,

· implementing designs/procedures to reduce bias and/or decrease costs (e.g. responsive or adaptive designs),

· using techniques to develop and improve data collections and questionnaires such as focus groups, cognitive labs, and focused interviews, and

· obtaining clearance from the Office of Management and Budget or similar body (such an Institutional Review Board).

· Demonstrates an understanding for designing and creating samples for large /complex data collections in conformance with the requirements; provides justifications for anticipated sample sizes, and uses generally accepted statistical principles. If the offeror proposes a different sampling design than requested, justification is provided using generally accepted statistical principles.

· Adequately and clearly describes the process for implementing the studies described in the optional tasks of the RFP including administrative NPSAS data collections, NPSAS collections with an interview, longitudinal studies, and postsecondary transcript collections. Plans are consistent with generally accepted statistical principles.

B. Quality and credibility of the general approach to the Performance Work Statement (20 Points)

· Approach to accomplishing each task and optional tasks is complete and feasible within the proposed time frames.

· Demonstrates an understanding of purpose and context of the overall project, the major issues and objectives, and how they relate to each task.

· Demonstrates an understanding of the challenges facing the project and proposes creative, innovative, and feasible solutions to these challenges.

C. Qualifications of proposed staff (20 Points)

· Demonstrates that the proposed project director(s) has experience with (1) similar data collections, (2) supervising the work of many professionals and the overall quality of their work on many tasks simultaneously, (3) has the ability to adhere to project schedules and keep costs within budget, and (4) manage the work of contractor staff and subcontractors.

· Staff must collectively possess the technical expertise, knowledge, and experience that are appropriate for the task assignments, including substantive knowledge in both:

· content expertise in postsecondary education (e.g. student financial aid, student access, persistence, attainment, and workforce outcomes) and

· technical expertise in statistics and survey methodology (e.g. sample design, weight construction, imputation, bias analysis, data analysis and reporting using complex sample surveys, and writing technical and methodological reports for the general public).

D. Corporate expertise, capability, and oversight (15 Points)

Demonstrated corporate expertise in the following areas

· data analysis and reporting,

· production of publications,

· implementation of quality control procedures and review process for all work products throughout all stages of all studies to ensure high quality assurance,

· quickly scaling up or down as needed to meet government requirements, and

· design and use of systems for documenting procedures and activities, management of large scale government contracts with the ability to monitor costs and identify efficiencies.

· Demonstrates sufficient IT infrastructure and capacity are available to support Web-based surveys and administrative data collections.

· Evidence of strong corporate commitment and oversight as evidenced by a clear and effective approach to problem identification and resolution.

E. Soundness of the management plan and task/time commitments of staff (10 Points)

· Proposes a sound and feasible approach to controlling the quality of project work and products.

· Proposed project organization demonstrates an efficient use of staff with clearly defined lines of authority and responsibilities, and staff assignments match their expertise, including the coordination of subcontractors and consultants

· Demonstrates effective control of tasks and resource allocations that will ensure the timely completion of tasks/deliverables within the proposed budget

F. Past Performance (10 Points) The offerors past performance evaluations and references contain clear evidence that the work cited in each evaluation or reference is relevant, and similar in nature, size, scope and complexity to the requirement. The past performance information contains concrete information on the following areas (that are of equal importance) which allow for a clear assessment of the offerors past performance as it relates to the execution of this requirement.

1) Quality of Product or Service

2) Problem Resolution

3) Cost Control

4) Timeliness of Performance

5) Business Relations

6) Customer Service

RATING SCALE

10 points - Relevant surveys received with all positive comments.

8 points - Relevant evaluations received with ratings of 3 or better, containing mostly positive comments.

5 points - No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful

Performance rating. A search by the CO or CS of the Contractor’s Performance

Assessment Review (CPARS) system (whose results will be shared with the

Panelists) resulted in an inability to identify any relevant past performance information for the offeror, subcontractors. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

4 points - Evaluations received containing negative comments and ratings of less than 3 and/or the project(s) were not relevant to this requirement.

0 points - Evaluations received containing a majority of negative comments, and ratings of 2 or less.

G. Substantive Small Business Participation (10 Points)

The points for this factor can be earned only if the technical proposal is not rated as

“deficient” based on the technical evaluation criteria. Only large businesses are required to submit a small business subcontracting plan. Small businesses who propose will receive the full 10 points if their proposal is not rated “deficient”.

A subcontracting plan should propose substantive work in a meaningful capacity be subcontracted to a Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business. A meaningful capacity for substantive work as described here includes work other than courier services, office supplies or travel services. A meaningful capacity is one in which small businesses are doing actual work under a particular task that is part of the contract and for which the small business has appropriate qualifications. Substantial work means work that is critical to the overall functions and goals of the project.

A subcontracting plan that proposes substantive work in a meaningful capacity to be subcontracted to small businesses qualified to conduct the work, proposes more than 43.5% of total subcontract dollars be subcontracted to small businesses, and the subcontracting targets meet or exceed the Department’s minimum acceptable percentages for each socioeconomic category may receive up to the maximum total 10 points. The Department’s small business subcontracting goals for 2013 are as follows (percentages represent the percent of subcontracted dollars):

RATING SCALE

i. Small Business 43.5%

2 points

ii. Small disadvantaged business concerns 5%

2 points

iii. Women-owned small business concerns 5%

2 points

iv. HUBZone small business concerns 3%

2 points

v. Service Disabled Veteran Owned small business concerns 3% 2 points

TOTAL 120 Points