Enclosure No. 4. - Evaluation Criteria.docx.docx

RFP No. 4-B148-P-00032-00

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):

1. Evaluation

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

1. Overall Relative Importance of Proposal Parts

The proposal shall be in three (3) parts: Part I –Business Management Proposal, Part II – Technical Proposal, and Part III - Cost/Price Proposal. Each of the parts shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of and concurrently with evaluation of the other. 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/trade-off. It may be in the best interest of the Laboratory to consider award to an offeror other than that with the lowest evaluated proposed cost if the perceived advantages of a higher-rated technical proposal justify a higher proposed cost.

III. Business Management Criteria

Offerors will be evaluated on the Pass-Fail factors identified in Enclosure No. 1, Instructions for Preparation of Proposals, Part I - Business/Management Proposal.

IV. Technical Evaluation Criteria

The Laboratory will use the following technical evaluation criteria, listed in descending order of importance (sub-criteria are of equal importance to one another), to evaluate the merit of the Technical Proposals using the following system:

· Experience Performing Similar Work, Staffing Process, Invoicing and Timecard Approval, Transition In/Out Plan, Reporting, and Travel criteria will be adjectivally scored as either Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

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

(1) Experience Performing Similar Work

a. Amount, relevance, and quality of experience will be evaluated. Experience with DOE National Laboratories, other Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)-focused institutions, or other relevant organizations will be weighed favorably.

b. Quality and pertinence of references will be considered, with focus placed on compliance with contract requirements, accuracy of reports, reliability and responsiveness to requests, timeliness of onboarding, reasonable/cooperative behavior with the Technical Representative and Procurement Specialist(s), and service or administration issues that may have arisen.

b. Quality of benefits packages will be considered to determine offeror’s ability to retain quality candidates/workers. Overall retention strategy will be taken into account.

c. The process employed to verify personnel qualifications, including education, previous employment, and US Citizenship or authorization to work in the US will be evaluated for suitability, efficiency, and adequacy.

d. While lack of an existing DOE or DOE Facility Clearance will not by itself preclude any offeror from an award, possession of a FOCI clearance will weight the rating of this criterion more heavily against offerors who do not have such clearance.

(3) Invoicing The invoicing procedure will be judged on its efficiency, accuracy, ease of access to timecards (if applicable), ease of access to timecard approvals (if applicable), adequacy of invoicing system (especially regarding the ability to segregate project codes), and whether it can be customized to meet the Laboratory’s requirements.

(4) Transition In/Out Plan The offeror’s discussion of their transition-in and transition-out processes will be evaluated based on factors including but not limited to: coordination with the personnel designated to transition to the agreement, how quickly the offeror can finalize related paperwork processes, how quickly the offeror can source qualified replacements if they choose not to transition the Laboratory’s suggested candidate, and how the offeror would handle communication with personnel working remotely.

(5) Reporting Sample reports will be evaluated based on completeness, readability, and responsiveness to the requirements.

(6) Travel

The proposed travel management system will be evaluated based on adequacy in fulfilling the requirements of the Statement of Work within the bounds of the travel and reimbursement policies outlined in Appendix “A”.

(7) Property Management

The proposed property management system will be evaluated for adequacy and perceived effectiveness.

(8) 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.

V. Cost/Price Criteria

The cost proposal will be evaluated on the most advantageous probable cost to the Laboratory, as well as consistency with market rates in order to maximize employee quality and retention.

VI. Basis for Award

Argonne shall make selection for award based on the principles of the best value/trade-off methodology. The Laboratory seeks to make award to the highest-rated Technical Proposal at the most advantageous probable cost. Pay ranges will be weighed against apparent advantages of individual technical proposals to determine if technically superior proposals warrant payment of any additional price.