Draft_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

ATTACHMENT C

Evaluation Criteria

I. Technical Approach

This section must address the following:

• The extent to which the offeror provides a comprehensive plan to assess and address the technical assistance needs of each grantee.

• The extent to which the offeror provides a well-developed solution for reviewing the data collection methods and systems documented by the grantee and ensuring that grantees gain the knowledge and skills to develop an effective case management and longitudinal data system.

• The extent to which the offeror presents a successful solution for reviewing the annual data reports and creating individual and cohort related reports based on the annual data.

• The extent to which the offeror demonstrates the ability to build the organizational and leadership capacity of each grantee.

• The extent the offeror demonstrates it can create a virtual platform for submitting data, reporting data and sharing information among grantees and the broader field;

• The extent the offeror demonstrates it can organize methods of meeting and leading all grantees to share insights, expertise and knowledge to improve the individual and collective resource sharing of Promise Neighborhoods communities.

II. Management Approach

This section must address the following:

• The extent to which the proposed management plan indicates the work will be performed in a timely, effective, and cost-efficient manner.

• The extent to which the proposed quality control processes and methods are logical, effective, and ensure only high quality materials and/or workmanship is accepted.

• The percentage of time each staff member will contribute to the program is appropriate and identified;

• The offeror demonstrates the ability to effectively, efficiently and correctly develop the deliverables within the timeframe proposed.

Proposals should also be rated as “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, or “Unacceptable.” These terms are defined as follows:

Outstanding: The quote has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which should clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. The quoted approach includes strength(s), and contains no weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies. The solutions quoted are considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements, and can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

Good: The quote demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This approach includes strength(s), and may include weaknesses but contains no significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The solutions quoted are considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements, and can be expected to result in better than satisfactory performance.

Acceptable: The quote demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach may have strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses but contains no deficiencies. In addition, the combined advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The solutions quoted are considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are for the most part clear, precise, and supported, demonstrate a general understanding of all the requirements, and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance with minor government intervention.

Unacceptable: The quote demonstrates an approach which will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has one or more weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The solutions quoted are considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity or precision, are unsupported, or indicate a lack of understanding of the requirement.

The following definitions shall be considered when evaluating the proposed solution:

Strength: An element of the quotation which enhances a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Department.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the likelihood of unsuccessful performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of the proposal to meet a Department requirement or a combination of three or more significant weaknesses that increase the likelihood of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

In addition to the rating of the technical merit of the vendor‘s quotation, the Overall Risk factor assesses the risks and weaknesses associated with each vendor‘s proposed approach to performing the requirements stated in the SOW. 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 quotation risk, the vendor‘s proposed approach will be rated as follows:

Adjective Description Low Risk Any quotation weaknesses have little potential to cause disruption of schedule and/or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably minimize any difficulties.

Moderate Risk Approach has weaknesses that can potentially cause some disruption of schedule and/or degradation of performance. However, special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably minimize any difficulties.

High Risk Approach has weaknesses, significant weaknesses and /or deficiencies that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule and/or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Price Evaluation

The Government will conduct a price analysis to assess the reasonableness of the Total Price for each Proposal. Since adequate price competition is anticipated, the price analysis will consist of:

• An assessment of labor rates to ensure all quoted rates are equal to or below the vendor’s approved labor rates incorporated in their contract at the time of award.

• A consideration of the level of effort and proposed labor mix and an assessment of the offeror’s business proposal is commensurate with their proposed technical approach.

• An assessment of whether the total price for the task order is fair and reasonable.

If deemed necessary, the Government may conduct additional price analysis techniques.

The award will be made to the Offeror whose proposed solutions represent the best value to the Department. Please note, although price will be an important factor–the non-price factors, when combined, will be more important.