Enclosure 4 - Evaluation Criteria.docx

RFP No. 3-B148-P-00280-00

ENCLOSURE NO. 4

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The offeror’s 3-part proposal will be evaluated on the response to each of the evaluation criteria, in the order prescribed below, and in conformance to the RFP instructions (Enclosure No. 1):

I. Evaluation

Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the Argonne National Laboratory approved Procurement Rules based on the Evaluation Criteria set forth below.

II. Overall Relative Importance of Proposal Parts

The Technical Proposal is of greater importance than the Cost Proposal and Business/Management Proposal. While the Cost Proposal and Business/Management Proposal may not be the controlling factor for award, they will be a significant part of the Laboratory's selection decision. The Laboratory shall make selection for award based on the principles of best value. It may be in the best interest of the Laboratory to consider award to other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated proposed cost if the perceived technical and/or business/management advantages of a higher evaluated proposed cost proposal merit the additional higher proposed cost.

The Technical Proposal will be scored in accordance with the criteria described in Section III below, as follows:

1. Technical Approach and Personnel Capability criteria will be adjectivally scored as either Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable.

2. Past Performance at Federal Government Facilities criterion will be adjectivally scored as Very Low Risk, Low Risk, Moderate Risk, High Risk, Very High Risk or Unknown Risk.

3. Proposal Risk criterion will be adjectivally scored as Low Risk, Moderate Risk, or High Risk.

The Cost Proposal and the Business/Management Proposal will not be adjectivally scored.

The Cost Proposal will be evaluated based on realistic costs and the evaluated cost to the Laboratory.

The Business/Management Proposal will be evaluated to determine responsiveness to the Non-Technical Factors and scored on a Pass/Fail basis.

III. TECHNICAL CRITERIA

The Laboratory will use the following technical evaluation criteria, listed in descending order of importance, to evaluate the merit of the Evaluation Criteria:

1. Technical Approach

The offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated as to how the offeror intends to perform the tasks described in the Statement of Work.

Evaluation of the technical approach will also include an evaluation of the following sub-criteria:

A. Understanding of and experience applying DHS, FEMA, DOE, GPO, and AP style guidelines across a variety of products.

B. Experience producing 508-compliant documents in support of DHS, FEMA, and/or DOE.

C. Experience designing graphics that effectively communicate complex relationships, processes, and information for customers in the emergency management and national preparedness mission space.

D. Ability to respond to and complete tasks in a timely manner, including those with limited notice.

2. Personnel Capability

The Key Personnel resumes shall be evaluated to determine the extent, depth, and quality of the Key Personnel(s)’ relevant work experience, as well as the quality and applicability of their education, technical expertise, and professional development as they relate to their proposed positions in the performance of this contract.

3. Past Performance

Offerors shall be evaluated on their past performance in providing similar services to those solicited in this RFP and shall provide documentation necessary to adequately evaluate the Offeror’s capability to successfully perform the requirements stated in the RFP. Argonne National Laboratory reserves the right to visit prospective supplier sites to gather additional pre-bid qualification information.

In addition to any other information that the Offeror shall provide to allow Argonne to evaluate past performance, each Offeror shall furnish with their proposal the following information: references from at least three clients for whom your firm has provided services within the previous two years, preferably clients with whom you have contracted personnel with similar experience as specified in Appendix “B”, Statement of Work, dated 07/06/2023. Include for each reference the company name, address, telephone number, point of contact, and the contract number. References may be commercial or government customers, provided the work performed was comparable in scope.

4. Proposal Risk

Proposal Risk shall be considered with respect to all other factors. Evaluation of Proposal Risk includes consideration of: Offeror’s demonstration of understanding of scope; risk of successful performance of the contract; and ability and commitment to service.

IV. BUSINESS/MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

Offerors will be evaluated on the Pass-Fail factors identified in Enclosure No. 1, Part II - Business/Management Proposal, and additional evaluation will be conducted on the following:

1. Contract Management: Adequacy of the financial controls, accounting system, cost accounting standards, and project management controls that will be utilized to administer the contract.

2. Financial Capability: The offeror's financial condition and adequacy of working capital will be evaluated to determine if adequate resources are available and committed to allow for successful performance.

3. Other Information:

i. Any other clarification information in offeror’s Business/Management Proposal such as assumptions made, contingencies used, etc.

ii. Explanation on any aspect of the proposal that is inconsistent with the offeror's disclosed practices or applicable cost accounting standards.

V. COST/PRICE CRITERIA

The Cost Proposal will not be point scored but will be evaluated on the most advantageous probable cost to the Laboratory, all factors considered. While the Cost Proposal may not be the controlling factor for award, it will be a significant part of the Laboratory’s selection decision.

The proposal costs will be evaluated for reasonableness in light of the statement of work requirements and instructions, including completeness/conciseness and clarity of the material presented.

A comparison shall be made of the competitive prices received under this solicitation. The computed total prices of each offer will be compared to determine the lowest priced proposal received.

Estimated total hourly usage per year for each labor category will be utilized to estimate total prices. The estimates included in the Pricing Proposal Format (Enclosure 3) are not binding and should not be interpreted as guarantees of requested hours. The Laboratory reserves the right to request more hours than estimated or no hours for any and all labor categories.

VI. Selection and Award

1. A proposal may be eliminated from consideration if the proposal is so grossly and obviously deficient as to be totally unacceptable. For example, if it does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address itself to the essential requirements of the RFP, or clearly demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the requirements of the RFP. A “Fail” determination on the Business/Management Criteria will result in elimination from consideration.

2. The Laboratory may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Laboratory Procurement Official determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Laboratory.

3. If a cost realism analysis is performed, cost realism may be considered by the source selection authority in evaluating performance or schedule risk.

4. Offerors should be prepared to respond to requests by the Laboratory Procurement Official for oral presentations or written discussions, or both, facility surveys, and other information as may be necessary to assist in the detailed evaluation process. The Laboratory reserves the right, however, to 1) make a selection without discussion with any of the offerors; 2) reject any and all offers; and 3) waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. It is therefore emphasized that each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms to the Laboratory that the offeror can submit.

6. The Laboratory may solicit, from available sources, experience data concerning an offeror’s past performance and will consider such information in its evaluation.

7. The Laboratory intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to this RFP and represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated above.

8. If the Laboratory Procurement Official determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Laboratory Procurement Official may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

9. Exchanges with offerors after receipt of a proposal do not constitute a rejection or counteroffer by the Laboratory.