Enclosure No. 4 Evaluation Criteria.docx

RFP No. 4-P131-P-00098-00

ENCLOSURE NO. 4

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The offeror’s 3-part proposal will be evaluated on the basis of the following 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 using Best Value/Trade-off methodology.

II. Overall Relative Importance of Proposal Parts

The Business/Management Proposal will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis; failed Business/Management Proposals will not progress to the Technical Evaluation step. The Technical Proposal is of greater importance than the Price Proposal. While the Price 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 a selection for award using best value/trade-off methodology. It may be in the best interest of the Laboratory to consider award to an offeror other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated proposed cost if the perceived technical advantages of a higher-rated technical proposal justify a higher proposed price.

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

1. Technical Evaluation Criteria will be adjectivally evaluated as either Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

2. Proposal Risk criterion will be adjectivally evaluated as Low Risk, Moderate Risk, or High Risk. The offeror’s risk matrix and mitigation approach will be considered along with any perceived risks or weaknesses contained in the overall proposed approach to determine the potential of disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in performance.

The Price Proposal and the Business/Management Proposal will not be adjectivally rated.

The Price Proposal will be evaluated based on realistic costs and the evaluated cost to the Laboratory. The Business/Management Proposal will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis to determine responsiveness to the Non-Technical Factors.

III. Evaluation Criteria

A. Technical Evaluation Criteria

The Laboratory will use the technical evaluation criteria enumerated below to evaluate the merit of the Technical Proposals and will utilize the following “relative importance” hierarchy during the evaluation process: listed in descending order of importance.

(1) Technical Approach

A. The technical approach shall be evaluated for thoroughness and suitability in addressing all the requirements of the SOW, perceived effectiveness and ability to complete all required tasks, adequacy of proposed workforce, innovativeness, and demonstration of understanding of scope and requirements.

B. Amount, relevance, and quality of examples will be evaluated.

C. The offeror’s access to benchmarking and performance data across relevant capital projects will be evaluated.

(2) Past Performance

Offerors will be evaluated on their past performance in providing similar services to those solicited in this RFP as follows:

A. The offeror’s demonstration of the ability to apply their commercial experience to work similar to the SOW and other major DOE capital projects/DOE-funded projects will be evaluated for relevance and applicability.

B. Offerors will be evaluated on their ability to display the required technical knowledge and breadth of experience.

(3) Depth of Qualified Personnel

A. Offerors shall be evaluated on their ability to supply qualified personnel, with a focus on ample personnel with experience providing similar services for federal government entities, contractors, and commercial entities.

B. The proposed project team will be evaluated on the amount, relevance, and quality of experience, as well as any certifications they may possess that are related to the requirements of the SOW.

C. The firm’s range of expertise will be evaluated based on coverage of all specified areas of expertise and additional relevant expertise not specifically cited in Enclosure 1.

(4) Timely Response Response time in completing this requirement is critical to the Laboratory’s needs.

A. The firm’s approach to completing deliverables on time and on a compressed schedule will be evaluated for suitability, perceived effectiveness, and likelihood of on-time delivery.

B. The firm’s proposed project schedule for requirements of Appendix “B”, Statement of Work, will be evaluated for comprehensiveness, realism, and demonstrated understanding of the scope.

(5) Sample Report

The sample report will be evaluated for clarity, conciseness, and completeness.

B. Proposal Risk Criterion

Proposal Risk shall be considered with respect to all other factors. Evaluation of Proposal Risk includes consideration of the offeror’s demonstration of their understanding of scope, risk of successful performance of the contract, and ability and commitment to service. The supplied risk matrix and mitigation plan will be evaluated along with the technical proposal as a whole to determine proposal risk.

IV. Business/Management Criteria

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

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.

V. Price Criteria

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

The proposal price 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.

VI. Selection and Award

1. 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.

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.

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

9. Proposals will not be returned (except for timely withdrawals).