REL_-_Rating_Scale_and_Eval_Criteria.docx

1. Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Regional Educational Laboratory Program

ED-IES-15-R-0016

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.

Best Value Methodology A tradeoff methodology will be employed during the evaluation in order to identify the best value. Price/Cost will be an important factor; however, price/cost will be significantly less important than technical merit.

The Department will use the following factors to evaluate offers. The criteria are listed in descending order of importance (but note that sub-factors beneath each individual criterion are of equal weight):

Technical Evaluation Criteria – Summary of Criteria

Criteria

1. Quality and credibility of the technical approach

2. Technical and managerial qualifications and experience of the proposed project director and deputy director

3. Qualifications of the Non-Director/Non-Deputy Director project staff

4. Quality and feasibility of proposed plans contained within the three “Concept Papers” required in Appendix A

5. Soundness of the management plan and timelines

6. Organizational Capabilities, Experience, & Resources

7. Small Business Participation

8. Past performance

1. Quality and credibility of the general technical approach

· Demonstrates an understanding of the purpose and context of the contract, the major issues and objectives, potential challenges, and how a coherent body of REL work is the cumulative result of projects that fall under different tasks.

· Proposed approach for accomplishing each task and the full set of tasks in the core contract is complete and feasible within the proposed time frames. The timeline adequately accounts for the review process and challenges in obtaining data.

· Demonstrates a clear understanding of the needs of the region and proposes a reasonable and well thought-out solution about how best to serve those needs.

· Proposal demonstrates a clear and comprehensive knowledge of the skills, resources, and strategies needed to complete the work. For example:

· Demonstrates an understanding of how to match an appropriate research design to a specific research question or set of questions.

· Demonstrates an understanding of What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) group design standards, including key elements of rigorous, causal research designs.

· Demonstrates an understanding of statistical sampling procedures and non-response analyses.

· Proposed plan for work reflects both the rigor of the REL program and the needs of the region

· Proposed plan presents a creative solution which maximizes the use of the funding allocated to that region

· Proposed plan is clearly written, coherent, well organized, and demonstrates a commitment to detail and high quality work

2. Technical and managerial qualifications and experience of the proposed project director and deputy director

· Together the Project Director and Deputy Director represent a combination of expertise in the areas of research, researcher-practitioner partnerships and project management.

· The proposal includes adequate time commitments for the project director and deputy director (defined in the Instructions to Offerors as 60% FTE for the Director during the first four years of the contract) and a combined FTE of the Director and Deputy Director of at least 1.4 FTE throughout the duration of the contract).

· Proposed Project Director and Deputy Director have relevant experience and education/training of in the following areas:

· Experience planning and executing research-based technical assistance, training, and/or coaching to education stakeholders

· Experience conducting high-quality, peer-reviewed, education research studies using causal and correlational research designs

· Established connections with policymakers and education stakeholders within the region

· Expertise in running large scale operations that are similar in scope and scale to the current requirement

· Ability to adhere to project schedules, keep costs within budget, and manage the work of subcontractors

· Familiarity with communicating complex scientific and technical information in a user-friendly and intuitive manner

· Experience meeting the needs of multiple stakeholders with diverse interests

3. Qualifications of the Non-Director/Non-Deputy Director project staff

· Proposed key project staff have proposed adequate time commitments to this project (as defined in the Instructions to Offerors: Task 4 lead – 50% time throughout the contract, Task 5 lead – 60% time throughout the contract, Task 6 lead – 50% time throughout the contract).

· Proposed key project staff have combined experience and education/training in the following areas:

· Capability to develop or maintain partnerships with key stakeholders to work on projects on a variety of topics

· Content-area expertise

· Experience working with state and local education agencies within the region

· Experience working with state and local education policymakers and practitioners to conduct high quality, peer-reviewed research

· Experience providing research-based technical assistance, training, and/or coaching to key education stakeholders, specifically building the capacity of stakeholders to understand and apply evidenced-based research.

· Experience conducting high-quality, causal research and correlational research in order to answer key questions of policymakers and educators

· Experience in conducting What Works Clearinghouse reviews of research.

· Experience producing engaging tools for educators to use to improve practice

· Experience producing graphic summaries of education research in easy-to-understand formats.

· Experience communicating technical and complex ideas, in plain language to multiple stakeholders with limited technical expertise using a variety of dissemination formats

· Experience developing website content to share complex information to a wide variety of audiences

1. Quality and feasibility of proposed plans contained within the three “Concept Papers” required in Appendix A (specific topic is assigned in the instructions to offerors)

· Concept papers address the assigned topic for the region and include a compelling justification for how the proposed projects will meet regional needs.

· Concept papers reflect targeted, realistic plans with feasible timeframes.

· Concept papers are consistent with the goals of the REL program (rigor, relevance, regional needs, and national application).

· The writing, reasoning, and overall conceptual plans proposed in the concept papers is of high quality and free from errors.

· Proposed project staff have the experience, expertise, and time available to complete the plans as proposed in the concept papers.

5. Soundness of the management plan and timelines

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

· Proposes a project team that 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

· Clear explanation of how problems will be solved and how the contractor will work to remedy them

· Provides evidence of strong corporate commitment to managerial oversight as evidenced by a clear and effective approach to problem identification and resolution, and/or a clear corporate structures for project oversight

· Has strong system for monitoring project budgets and expenditures

· Describes a clear and convincing quality control plan that will ensure that deliverables are timely, complete, free of errors, and demonstrate the level of effort needed to successfully complete the task

6. Organizational Capabilities, Experience, & Resources

· Demonstrates success in collaborating with other entities and partners, especially with multiple stakeholders with diverse interests

· Demonstrates experience with other government funded projects (including state and local government) of a similar scale, scope, and challenges

· Has a track record of recruiting and maintaining well-qualified researchers and staff

7. Small Business Participation

Small business participation evaluation is a two-part process. First, the Department will review and consider the extent to which the Offeror proposes substantive work for small business participation in a meaningful capacity to fulfill the requirements of the PWS. Second, the Department will utilize the following small business calculation tool. This tool will provide a number that the evaluation team will use to evaluate the small business subcontracting plan, and the Small Business Subcontracting Score is tied to thresholds described in the rating scale. It is possible to earn a score higher than 100, and exceeding this score does not represent a competitive advantage. Additionally the Department may downgrade your score if it determines that you did not propose substantive and meaningful work to subcontractors.

[TOOL ON NEXT PAGE]

Achievement

Weight

Weighted Performance

8. Past Performance Past performance information is submitted that is relevant to the nature, scope and complexity of the work outlined in the PWS. Information received from the contractor is favorable, and does not contain any valid negative information. If no relevant information on past performance is available for an offeror, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, but will receive a neutral rating for this criterion. If a contractor’s past performance includes small business subcontracting, the Department will review the contractor’s past performance in complying with the subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns.

Price:

Evaluation of the business proposal shall be conducted under the guidance of the assigned CO, and supported by the Contract Specialist (CS). However, the panel chair shall review the business volume.

Funding for the REL program is set by formula, and the Department will provide estimated contract values to the all offerors so that they may submit proposals that make the most of available funding. As a result, we do not anticipate that there will be variation in price between each offeror in a region. For this reason, the Department will evaluate the component price and level of effort of each element. For example, is Offeror A proposing to accomplish 10 [X] for a set price while Offeror B is only proposing to accomplish 4?

The evaluators will apply the following adjectival ratings to each individual criterion except the Small Business Participation criterion:

EVALUATION SCALE A:

CRITERIA 1-6, 8

EVALUATION SCALE B:

CRITERION 7: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION