Evaluation Factors for Award - INTAC - 12 06 2021.pdf

Evaluation Criteria Individual Terrorism Awareness Course (INTAC)

Evaluation Factors for Award

1. FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers, listed below. A rating of “unacceptable” for any non-price evaluation factor will make that offeror’s proposal unawardable.

1. Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposed technical approach

• Demonstrates an understanding of all the technical requirements and provides an efficient and effective way of accomplishing all the tasks identified in the PWS;

• Provides a viable Transition-in Plan, including the necessary activities for conducting an orderly transition, with minimal impact on continuity of operations, and being able to identify and address any potential issues as they arise. The Transition-in Plan will be evaluated for completeness, timeliness of transition process, efficiency, understanding of the current environment, impact and risks to customers and management.

2. Factor 2: Management Approach/Staffing Approach

The Government will evaluate the proposed management approach/staffing approach in order to assess

• The Offeror’s ability to manage and balance technical performance, time constraints, cost factors, and the management of subcontractor personnel and their integration in the overall structure, if applicable;

• The Offeror has identified a sound approach to managing multiple task orders, covering multiple tasking/subtasking areas, with multiple skill sets;

• The Organizational chart shall be evaluated to ensure o The Offeror demonstrates a sound plan to hire and retain personnel with a wide diversity of experience, education, and qualifications, with proven expertise in their field to successfully meet the requirements listed in the PWS;

o The Offeror demonstrates sound and feasible methods to reduce personnel turn-over and turbulence;

o The proposed organizational structure delineates lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability for the management and oversight of the contract.

• The resumes of the proposed key personnel will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror has demonstrated a sound rationale and has identified the qualifications (i.e., degree, certifications, licenses, relevant number of years of experience) that will be required for key personnel positions, in accordance with the PWS;

• How well the Offeror demonstrates quality oversight and how quality standards will be achieved and maintained during the entire period of performance of the contract based on the proposed Quality Control Plan.

3. Factor 3: Small Business Participation

The extent of small business participation will be evaluated against the goals established in the solicitation. All Offerors (both other than small and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the contract (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the contract. All Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which small businesses, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals. Offerors will be evaluated on the extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones). Offerors will also be evaluated on the extent of small business participation as prime contractors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the goal of 20% small business participation.

All apparently successful offerors that are considered other than small businesses must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award.

The technical evaluation (Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3) will be performed using the ratings listed in the table below:

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a through approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates and adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

4. Factor 4: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. This evaluation includes considering the recency and relevancy of the submitted past performance along with the quality of work on those recent efforts. Relevant contracts are those completed or ongoing for the same or similar in nature, complexity, and dollar value to the work required in this solicitation. Contracts must have been completed within the last three (3) years from the solicitation release date. Ongoing contracts must be at least 50% complete by the solicitation release date.

The team will use information determined to be recent and relevant to determine how well the contractor performed on the referenced contracts. Past performance areas of evaluation include:

o Business Relations o Quality of Service o Schedule o Customer Satisfaction

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to past performance information retrieved through the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE codes/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "acceptable."

The past performance will be rated on an adjectival basis using the ratings in table below.

The Government will first conduct a recency and relevancy assessment of the submitted past performance efforts. Only submissions assessed as recent and relevant, per the definitions below, will be evaluated for a past performance confidence assessment:

• Recency: To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

• Relevance: To be relevant, the effort must be similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.

Past Performance will be evaluated using the adjectival ratings listed in the tables below:

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating: Description:

Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 2: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5. Factor 5: Price

The Offeror’s price will be evaluated for reasonableness.

The Government intends to award an IDIQ/SATOC to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and it is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

Technical Approach, Management Approach/Staffing Approach, Small Business Participation, and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than Price. The Government intends to award an IDIQ/SATOC to the Offeror that provides the best value to the Government (tradeoff evaluation).

(a) Options: The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

2. Minimum Guarantee:

This is a Firm Fixed Price, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) for Training and Support Services for the US Army Individual Terrorism Awareness Course. Services will be ordered by issuance of Task Orders. The Contractor shall, upon receipt of a duly executed Task Order, perform all services required by this contract. The Contractor shall complete all work and services ordered within the period specified in the Task Order. The total maximum amount the Government will order under this contract is Not to Exceed $8,900,000 for the five-year ordering period.

The Minimum guarantee for this requirement is $10,000.

Quantities stated are estimated maximum quantities and are for evaluation of price proposals only. The Government reserves the right to order quantities that are more than or less than those stated in any line item, provided that the total dollar amount of orders does not exceed the maximum contract amount of $8,900,000.

Unit prices in this Schedule will be used in pricing of all task orders and/or task order modifications issued throughout the life of the contract.