Evaluation Factors.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS & METHODOLOGY

PfP Consortium International Program Coordinator

1. EVALUATION FACTORS.

Factor Identification – for subject PfP Consortium International Program Coordinator

In its response, the quoter must address all factors (to include the pass/fail factors).

Factor 1 (Pass/Fail) English Language Proficiency

Factor 2 Experience Sub-factor 2.1 Working with Former Communist Countries Sub-factor 2.2 Teaching Sub-factor 2.3 Organizing International Events

Factor 3 Past Performance Factor 4 Education

Factor 5 Price

2. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

Factor 1. English language proficiency. (Pass/Fail)

Submission Requirements: The quoter shall provide evidence of the International Program Coordinator’s working knowledge of English, either as a native speaker, through formal education (courses completed at an institution of higher learning taught in English and requiring participation in English, e.g. term papers), English language proficiency certification, or has used English in a work environment where English was the primary means of communication. Native English is preferred.

Factor 2. Experience. The quoter shall provide a narrative of the International Program Coordinator’s experience including organizations worked for, levels of responsibility, dates of experience, significant accomplishments and awards received.

Sub-Factor 2.1. Working with Former Communist Countries.

Submission Requirements: The quoter shall provide a narrative of the International Program Coordinator’s experience in coordinating and/or executing governmental or civilian programs to assist former communist countries in establishing open societies with rule of law, civilian control of armed forces, security sector reform, market economies, respect for human rights, free press, a functioning civil society, etc. Experience coordinating programs with elements of the U.S. Department of Defense will be an advantage, as this is expected to be frequently necessary under this contract.

Sub-Factor 2.2. Teaching.

Submission Requirements: The quoter shall provide a narrative of the International Program Coordinator’s experience in teaching adults in a formal setting, including number of years, location, duties performed, level of responsibility, target audience, and subject(s) taught.

Sub-Factor 2.3. Organizing international events

Submission Requirements: The quoter shall provide a narrative of the International Program Coordinator’s experience in organizing conferences, workshops, seminars, trade shows, and the like. Having done so in an international setting will be an advantage, as it will indicate an ability to deal with foreign personnel. The quoter shall give examples that show diplomacy, awareness of and sensitivity to cultural differences, a knowledge of logistical and visa requirements, recruiting subject matter experts, speakers and moderators, and refining themes and project/agenda topics.

Factor 3. Past Performance.

Submission Requirements: The quoter shall provide past performance information for the International Program Coordinator (e.g. letters of recommendation, copies of supervisor feedback, performance evaluations) indicating the quality of work during the past three years. Past performance information shall cover a minimum of 1 year. The quoter shall provide at least one reference for any project identified under the experience factor that has a performance period within the past three years. For each reference, the quoter shall provide:

1. Organization/company/contracting partner’s name.

2. Point of contact’s (POC) name and contact information:

Current phone numbers.

Valid email addresses.

3. Description that precisely explains:

General scope of the contract.

Specific requirements of the contract.

Performance period.

Quoters shall forward the Past Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit A) to each reference identified above requesting the survey be completed and forward it to the Marshall Center contracting office before the due date specified for the receipt of quotes.

Factor 4. Education.

Submission Requirements: The quoter shall demonstrate the International Program Coordinator's educational qualifications by providing documentation such as transcripts and diplomas of all courses taken at institutions of higher learning. The International Program Coordinator shall have a minimum of a Master’s degree in a field applicable to the contract. Examples include international relations, public administration, political science, education, history, political philosophy, geography, and economics.

Factor 5. Price.

Submission Requirements: The quoter shall provide firm fixed unit and total prices in all line item descriptions (SF1449) except for the travel Contract Line Item (CLIN) 0002 and the corresponding option year CLINs.

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

(a) This contract is being competed using Commercial Item Test Procedures under FAR subpart 13.5 to the maximum extent possible. This acquisition will use trade-off analysis to make a best value award decision. Source selection will incorporate trade-off techniques and will be made based on an integrated assessment of each quote.

As such, the Government may award to a quoter who is not the lowest price or the highest rated technically.

(b) The Government will extend one offer resulting from this solicitation to the responsible quoter whose quote conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

(c) The technical evaluation factors will be evaluated in terms of the qualifications presented for the International Program Coordinator. Factor 1 will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. The remaining technical Factors will be evaluated using adjectival ratings and are listed in descending order of importance. The sub-factors for Factor 2 are listed in descending order of importance. All technical factors when combined are more important than Price.

Factor 1. English Language Proficiency. (Pass/Fail)

If the Government receives evidence that the International Program Coordinator’s English language skills are sufficient to fulfill the requirements of this contract (e.g. understand written and oral instructions, coordinate with U.S. civilian and military officials), the quoter shall receive a pass under this factor. Evidence shall consist of proof that the proposed international program coordinator is either a native speaker, or, he/she has obtained English language fluency through formal education (courses completed at an institution of higher learning taught in English and requiring participation in English, e.g. term papers), or English language proficiency certification, or has used English in a work environment where English was the primary means of communication. Only those quotes that meet these requirements will be evaluated further.

Factor 2. Experience.

Sub-Factor 2.1. Working with Former Communist Countries.

The Government will evaluate the depth and relevancy of the International Program Coordinator’s experience as compared to the services required by this solicitation. Relevant experience includes contracts or government experience operating in similar working environments and contracts involving services that are considered to be similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity when compared to the requirements described in this solicitation.

Experience coordinating programs with elements of the U.S. Department of Defense will be an advantage, as this is expected to be frequently necessary under this contract. Depth refers to familiarity with and travel to former communist countries in the context of relevant work, as well as length of time dealing with relevant issues.

Sub-Factor 2.2. Teaching.

The Government will evaluate the depth, recentness, and relevancy of the International Program Coordinator’s experience teaching adults in a formal setting. Experience teaching in a staff college or war college will be an advantage. Responsibility for curriculum development or faculty development will also be an advantage.

Sub-Factor 2.3. Organizing international events.

The Government will evaluate the depth, recentness, and relevancy of the International Program Coordinator’s experience planning and executing international events. Relevancy is defined as experience where the International Program Coordinator’s role in planning and executing events is similar to the role described in this solicitation, as well as the event scale in terms of budget and participant numbers, types of participants, international character, and subject matter as it relates to events described by this solicitation.

Factor 3. Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate the recentness, relevancy, and quality of the International Program Coordinator’s past performance. Relevant contracts are contracts operating in similar working environments and contracts involving services that are considered to be similar in scope, magnitude and complexity when compared to the requirements described in this solicitation. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the International Program Coordinator’s past performance will be used to evaluate how well he/she has performed similar services in the past. Quotes lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance. To assess performance risk the Government may use both past performance data provided by the quoters (e.g., official performance reviews/appraisals, letters of recommendation), information obtained using Exhibit A questionnaire, and data obtained independently.

Factor 4. Education.

The Government will evaluate the level and relevancy of the International Program Coordinator’s educational qualifications.

Factor 5. Price.

5.1. All prices, including option years, will be evaluated for reasonableness and in accordance with FAR 52.225-17, Evaluation of Foreign Currency Offers (FEB 2000), as applicable. The travel Contract Line Item (CLIN) 0002 and the corresponding option year CLINs will not be evaluated for reasonableness as all quotes will contain the same value for these CLINs.

5.1.1. Options. The Government will evaluate quotes for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a quote is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

APPENDIX D

Exhibit A

Past Performance Questionnaire for International Program Coordinator

The contractor listed below is being considered in a Source Selection by the Partnership for Peace (PfP) Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes, located at the George C. Marshall Center in Garmisch, Germany. It would be appreciated if you would provide us with comments regarding the contractor's past performance. Your comments are considered Source Selection Sensitive; therefore, you are advised that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (15.1004) prohibits the release of the names of individuals providing reference information about a contractor’s past performance. In order to maintain the integrity of the source selection process, we respectfully request that you do not divulge the name of the contractor nor discuss your comments on this questionnaire with any other individuals. Please fax or e-mail this form as soon as possible to: Brian Kehoe at +49

(0) 8821 750 2554 or brian.k.kehoe@marshallcenter.org.

Background information on requirement:

The PfP Consortium (PfPC) is collocated and works closely with the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. The Marshall Center (MC), is a joint US Department of Defense and German Ministry of Defense institution located in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. The PfP Consortium is a voluntary association of institutes of higher learning, both governmental and private, in defense and security affairs that is financially supported by the United States, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Consortium seeks to strengthen defense, military, and security policy education through enhanced national and institutional cooperation. The Consortium’s networks support the educational aspect of defense institution building (DIB) in Partner nations. Its working groups produce curriculum adapted to both resident and advanced distributed learning needs. They also consult in defense education enhancement and conduct workshops in faculty development. The Consortium also seeks to increase the scope of multinational research on critical issues confronting EAPC nations. The PfPC’s working groups unite experts, academic and practitioner, to produce new scholarly content in the areas of combating terrorism, security sector reform and regional stability with a focus on Southeast Europe and the greater Black Sea area. The Consortium’s substantive activity is accomplished by international working groups, currently numbering six, which pursue the goals outlined above. An Editorial Board also produces a quarterly scholarly journal. The Consortium’s governance bodies include a Consortium Steering Committee at the operational level, and a Senior Advisory Council with general officer or equivalent representatives. The Consortium’s Executive Director sits on both these councils, which meet twice yearly, in addition to running the daily operations with the assistance of an Operations Staff located at the Marshall Center.

The contractor shall provide the necessary non-personal services and management required to support the planning and execution of the international programs of the PfP Consortium. The nature of the contract includes coordination of an annual schedule of events with internationally-manned-and-located working groups. The principal area of effort will be supporting the Education Development Working Group’s (ED WG) activities aimed at enhancing the education of defense professionals in Partner nations.

__________________________ is being considered as an International Program Coordinator for the PfP Consortium.

Project Information:

1. Contractor’s name (prime/sub): ______________________________________________________________

2. Project title/contract number: ________________________________________________________________

3. Date of award: ___________ 4. Actual completion date: ________ mailto:brian.k.kehoe@marshallcenter.org

5. Contract currently in process: Yes ____ No ____

6. Contract value per year:

7. Contract type: (FFP/CPAF/Etc.)

8. Did the International Program Coordinator work with former communist countries to assist them with democratic reforms of any type?

9. What countries did the International Program Coordinator work with and for how long?

10. Does the International Program Coordinator have experience in teaching adults in a formal setting? If so, what type of institution and students, and for what length of time?

11. Did this International Program Coordinator have any responsibility for curriculum development or faculty development? If so, please describe.

12. Did this International Program Coordinator organize events such as conferences, workshops, seminars, trade shows, etc.? If so, please provide examples that illustrate the scale, topic, location, and international composition of the events.

Evaluator Information: (The following information will assist in the analysis of the data. Information will be kept confidential.)

1. Name:_______________________________________ Date:________________

2. Phone no.:________________________________ Fax no.:_________________

3. Address:__________________________________________________________

4. Your position or function in relation to project:__________________________________________________

5. Have you personally observed this contractor in the activities described above?

Ratings: (Please evaluate the contractor's performance using the following ratings.)

“E” Excellent The contractor’s performance clearly exceeded the contract requirements.

“VG” Very Good The contractor’s performance somewhat exceeded the contract requirements.

"S" Satisfactory The contractor's performance met the contract requirements.

"M" Marginal The contractor's performance met the minimum contract requirements but with difficulty.

"U" Unsatisfactory The contractor's performance was poor and/or did not satisfy contract requirements.

Please rate and provide any supporting information for the following: (Use additional sheets as needed)

1. Please describe the individual’s interpersonal skills?

Rating

2. Does the individual deal courteously and patiently with foreigners?

3. Does the individual show attention to detail?

4. Does the individual have the ability to function under stress in a fast-moving and complex environment requiring detailed planning and execution of events?

5. Does the individual have a good understanding of the principles of adult learning?

6. Does the individual have a good understanding of the history and challenges faced by former communist countries?

7. Does the individual enjoy meeting and developing professional relationships with people from a variety of backgrounds?

8. Is the individual apt to build consensus among actor with differing opinions?

9. Does the individual have a sense of customer service, being willing to deal with multiple queries, requests and problems of persons traveling to and participating in organized events?

10. Is the individual able to think strategically?

11. Does the individual prepare well and arrive on time for meetings?

12. Does the individual have good writing skills?

13. Please describe the individual’s integrity, reasonableness and cooperative conduct.

Rating

16. Please describe the individual’s ability to provide the required work at a reasonable total price.

Rating

17. Has the contractor been given any of the following: Cure notice, show cause, letters of reprimand, suspension of payments, termination? If yes, please explain.

18. Was the customer satisfied with the end product?

19. Has the contractor been provided an opportunity to discuss any negative performance ratings? If so, what were the results?

20. Would you award another contract to this contractor? If no, please state reasons for not recommending this contractor for additional work.

Please provide any additional comments you think we should consider when making our selection:

Signature:

Date:

Past Performance Questionnaire for International Program Coordinator