Evaluation Criteria and Methodology.pdf

Evaluation Criteria & Methodology

Leadership Development Program

Adjectival Ratings

Technical Factors

The Government will award a fixed price resulting from Request for Quotation (RFQ) 95332A20Q0026 to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation that will be most advantageous to the

Government, price and other factors considered. The factors detailed below are listed in order of importance and shall be used to evaluate technical responses.

Factor 1: Technical Merit/Approach

The Contractor’s proposal shall address each area of the Statement of Work (SOW) in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirement needs and the understanding of the expertise required for successfully meeting the requirements needs.

Evaluation of this factor will be based on the information contained in the proposal that demonstrates the degree of the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements and soundness of the Offeror’s proposed methodology to accomplish the SOW requirements.

The Technical Quote must address all the following technical evaluation factors:

1. The Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, including thoroughness shown in understanding of the specific tasks in the SOW.

2. The Offeror identifies potential challenges to successfully conducting each part of the requirement and presents strategies for addressing them.

3. The Offeror demonstrates the ability to provide NCCC with up to 10,000 (no less than

8,000) high quality recruitment leads per year as outlined in the SOW.

4. The Offeror demonstrates the ability to provide NCCC’s promotional materials to each recruitment lead.

5. The Offeror demonstrates the ability to feature NCCC on the Offeror’s website under alumni opportunities.

6. The Offeror’s approach is clear, coherent, thorough, and consistent with the tasks to be accomplished.

Factor 2: Corporate Capacity

This factor will address the corporate capabilities of the vendor in meeting requirements in the SOW.

1. Offeror will describe corporate business processes and systems that demonstrate the company’s ability to provide quality products and services in support of the requirements in the SOW.

2. Offeror will demonstrate that they have internal capacity and expertise to perform tasks and requirements specific in the SOW.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Contractor shall provide a list of two (2) past performance records with knowledge of the contractor’s relevant skills and experiences. References shall include the following information:

1. Name of Organization

2. Description of Contractor’s Responsibilities

3. Contact Name, Title, and Telephone Number

Evaluation Criteria & Methodology

Leadership Development Program

Adjectival Ratings

Past Performance shall be evaluated on such practices as conforming to requirements and to standards of good workmanship, adherence to schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, integrity and business ethics, and business-like concern for the interest of the customer. In the absence of past performance being provided, the offeror shall be rated neutral on this factor.

Technical Factors - Adjectival Scale

The Government will evaluate the technical proposal in accordance with the following adjectival scale:

Adjectival Rating Description

Exceptional Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good

Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist.

Acceptable

Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Marginal

Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist.

Unacceptable Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

Cost/Price Evaluation

Offeror(s) cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but in the event of only one proposal using the guidelines set forth in FAR 13.106-3, Award and Documentation. The

Offeror shall submit firm fixed prices for all items and/or services required in RFQ 95332A20Q0026

(including option periods).

Evaluation of Options

It is anticipated that any firm fixed price contract awarded from RFQ 95332A20Q0026 will contain option provision(s) and periods(s). In accordance with FAR clause 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options, (July 1990) the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options quantities to the total price of the base period requirement, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR

17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests. Evaluation of options will not obligate the

Government to exercise an available option(s).