Technical_Evaluation_Criteria_(Aug_1 _2014).pdf

52.212-2 -- Evaluation of Offers

Evaluation Criteria Sub-total

Points

Total

Points

1. Technical Approach: Soundness of approach to design and manage Challenges and competitions.

Clear understanding of the PWS for IDIQ and Two Task Orders 10

Manage concurrent, high profile national challenges and competitions 10

Comprehensive and highly creative communication strategy 15

Comprehensive understanding of Career and Technical Education 5

2. Technical Approach: Experience with new and emerging technologies

Clear understanding of simulation, video game development and data interconnectivity as it relates to the tasks in the PWS

Clear understanding of how new and emerging technology can improve teaching and learning processes

3. Quality of Management Plan and key personnel 20

Effectiveness in documenting ability to perform the project on time, including personnel responsibilities, timeliness and meeting milestones

Project Director’s educational background, professional preparation, content area expertise to manage high-profile competitions, and understanding of emerging technologies

Appropriate time commitments for Project Director and key personnel and effective management of subcontractors

Effectiveness of quality control procedures and role of key personnel in managing quality control process

Qualifications of subject matter experts, subcontractors and consultants 3

4. Experience and past performance 10

Depth and breadth of experience for designing and managing national competitions and challenges

Relevance and quality of past performance 5

Total: 100 100

Criterion 1: Technical Approach: Soundness of approach to design and manage challenges and competitions. (40 Points)

The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the Performance Work

Statement (PWS) and a comprehensive strategy that logically includes all the tasks in the first two Task Orders issued with the Request for Proposal. (10 POINTS)

The extent to which the proposal articulates the experience, capacity, and ability of the offeror to successfully manage concurrent, high-profile, national challenges and competitions, including a clear rationale and process for designing a competition. (10 POINTS)

The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a comprehensive and highly creative communications strategy designed to increase the quantity and quality of submissions through a variety of strategies and techniques, including a description of the timing and resources associated with doing so. (15 POINTS)

The extent to which the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of Career and

Technical Education. (5 POINTS)

Criterion 2: Technical Approach: Experience with new and emerging technologies

(30 Points)

The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of simulations, video game development, and data interconnectivity in context to the tasks in the PWSs. (15 POINTS)

The extent to which the proposal describes how new and emerging technology can improve teaching and learning processes. (15 POINTS)

Criterion 3: Quality of Management Plan and key personnel (20 Points)

The extent to which the management plan documents the offeror’s ability to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time, including clearly defined personnel responsibilities, timeliness, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (5 POINTS)

The extent to which the offeror presents evidence that the Project Director has the educational background, professional preparation and content area expertise to manage complex high-profile competitions and possesses an understanding of new and emerging technologies. (5 POINTS)

The extent to which the time commitments of the Project Director and key personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet proposed project objectives, and the offeror clearly describes its approach to effectively manage the team performing the contract, including a documented approach for coordination, communication, and final decision making among subcontractors, consultants, and partners, if any. (3 POINTS)

The extent to which quality control procedures are in place, as well as the roles of key personnel in the procedures, and that such procedures will result in high quality deliverables. (4 POINTS)

The extent to which the offeror presents evidence that the subject matter experts, sub-contractors, consultants, and partners identified in the proposal as key personnel have the educational background, professional preparation, successful prior experience, skills, and ability to successfully perform the specific tasks in this PWSs to which they are assigned. (3 POINTS)

Criterion 4: Experience and past performance (10 Points)

The extent to which the proposal demonstrates sufficient depth and breadth of the offeror’s experience in and organizational capacity for designing and managing national competitions and challenges. (5 POINTS)

The extent to which the offeror’s reputation, based on past performance reports, is demonstrated in terms of quality, problem resolution, timeliness, management and coordination of project partners, business relations, and customer service. The Department reserves the right to conduct its own Past Performance evaluation based on reports obtained through the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and other sources. (5 POINTS)

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

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

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

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

Risk: An element of the proposal that could potentially impact the successful performance of the contract, such as quality and timeliness of products and services.

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

Proposal Risk

In addition to the numerical rating of the technical merit of the offeror’s proposal, each proposal will be evaluated to assess the risks associated with each offeror’s proposal based on the following rating structure:

Adjective Description

Low Risk Low potential to cause disruption of schedule and/or degradation of performance. Normal Government monitoring required.

Moderate Risk Likely potential for some disruption of schedule and/or degradation of performance. More than normal Government monitoring required.

High Risk Likely potential for significant disruption of schedule and/or degradation of performance. Significant Government monitoring required.

The technical evaluation will result in an overall assessment/determination based on the following:

1) Technically Acceptable

2) Technically Unacceptable, But Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable

3) Technically Unacceptable

Price Evaluation

The business proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s price is fair and reasonable.

Specifically, the business proposal shall contain complete information as specified in the

Instructions to Offerors in sufficient detail for the Government to make a price reasonableness determination.