ATTACHMENT_H_-_HSLS_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

ATTACHMENT H

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Second Follow-up of the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09)

(ED-IES-13-R-0062)

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:

A. Quality and credibility of the general approach to the Performance Work Statement (40 points)

• Demonstrates an understanding of the issues in education that are to be addressed through the proposed study

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

• Approach to accomplishing each task and the full set of tasks in the core contract is complete and feasible within the proposed time frames

• Approach to accomplishing each of the optional study tasks is complete and feasible within the proposed time frames

B. Qualifications, technical and managerial, and experience of the proposed project director (20)

• Expertise in young adult development or postsecondary research focused on young adults as the unit of analysis

• Expertise in the design and conduct of large-scale panel surveys of individuals

• Demonstrated experience supervising the work of many professionals and the overall quality of their work on many tasks simultaneously

• Demonstrated ability to adhere to project schedules, keep costs within budget, and manage the work of contractor staff and subcontractors

C. Soundness of the management plan and task/time commitments of staff (10 points)

• Proposed project organization demonstrates an efficient use of staff with clearly defined lines of authority and responsibilities, and staff assignments match their expertise

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

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

D. Qualifications of the project staff (20 points)

• Collectively possess the technical expertise, knowledge, and experience in 1) complex large-scale data collection efforts; 2) survey design and instrument development; 3) coordinating multiple modes of data collection, which may include telephone, web and field data collection operations; 4) data processing and computer applications; 5) computer-assisted interview software and case management interfaces; 6) research methodology and statistics;

7) institutional contacting and records collection; and 8) data analysis and reporting

• Staff have published or presented at professional conferences the results of their research on substantive topics and methodological issues of high relevance to the study

E. Corporate expertise, capability, and oversight (10 points)

• Demonstrated corporate expertise in the following areas: design and conduct of large-sample national education studies; design of survey instruments; development and use of computer technology and software systems in support of large-sample data collection; design and use of systems for processing, documenting, and maintaining complex data bases; and experience protecting respondent identities and maintaining the security of the data collected

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 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, and subcontractors. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

2 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)

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 the 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 2014 and rating scale are as follows:

RATING SCALE

• Small Business 43.5% 2 points

• Small disadvantaged business concerns 5% 2 points

• Women-owned small business concerns 5% 2 points

• HUBZone small business concerns 3% 2 points

• Service Disabled Veteran Owned small business concerns 3% 2 points

TOTAL 120 POINTS