HSFEHQ-12-R-0017 ATTACHMENT B EVAL.pdf

ATTACHMENT B

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Evaluation Criteria

Language Line Services

BASIS FOR AWARD

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:

1. Technical

2. Implementation

3. Past Performance

4. Price/Cost

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are more important than cost or price.

CRITERIA I: TECHNICAL

Offerors shall submit a technical approach with a description of the services they would provide that demonstrate they clearly understand the Performance Work Statement and all required details of the RFQ- -not to exceed 25 pages, which includes cover page(s), etc. If the technical approach exceeds 25 pages then anything beyond the 25th page will not be reviewed nor taken into consideration.

***At a minimum and to receive an Adjectival rating, offerors shall state the number of interpreters it has in the following four (4) languages, which are: Spanish, Haitian Creole, Mandarin, and Vietnamese.

Offerors who do provide this information will be considered nonresponsive.

Also indicate the number of interpreters, if any, that will be dedicate solely to FEMA and what languages they interpret.

Note: it does not matter if interpreters have been cleared and gone through the adjudication/e-QIP process.

CRITERIA II: IMPLEMENTATION

Offerors will be evaluated on their ability and timeliness to implement the contract and any Task Orders awarded. Offerors shall discuss their ability to adequately schedule and staff the contract and any Task Order issued, as well as if their personnel are W2 employees or 1099 contractors. Offerors shall address fluctuating activity, changes in staffing requirements, on-going training, and internal communication processes. At what level and to what degree and how the offeror intends to maintain baseline operations will be evaluated. How the Offeror will implement and transition into activation and full performance shall be addressed.

CRITERIA III: PAST PERFORMANCE

Offerors shall provide past performance on three (3) federal government agencies or other commercial business for which it has provided interpretation services for call agents to support caller services data entry within the past five (5) years.

Offerors shall provide the attached Past Performance Questionnaires to references from the aforementioned to be returned to the Contracting Officer at Michelle.Calhoun@dhs.gov. Past Performance Questionnaires are due by the solicitation closing date.

In evaluating past performance, the Government will consider information obtained from past and present customers. By past performance, the Government means the offeror’s record of conformity to specifications and to standards of quality of service, timeliness of performance, business relations, mailto:Michelle.Calhoun@dhs.gov� compliance with safety and security requirements, and contractual considerations, all of which are questions identified on the Past Performance Questionnaire.

Note: Relevancy will be defined as: very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, not relevant. If only one questionnaire is turned in on an offeror’s behalf then that questionnaire will be rated accordingly (outstanding, very good, etc.) and the last two missing questionnaires will each be given a “neutral” rating. An offer with no relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will receive a rating of “neutral” for each missing questionnaire.

CRITERIA IV: PRICE

Price/cost, while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful Offeror for award of the contract contemplated by this solicitation

However, cost/price may become a critical factor in source selection in the event that two or more offerors are determined to be essentially equal following the evaluation of all factors other than cost or price. In any event the Government reserves the right to make an award to the offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

Rating Definitions

Adjectival Technical & Implementation

Outstanding The Vendor’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in superior achievement of the Government’s objectives with minimal risk. An “Outstanding” rating indicates that the quote contains significant strengths with no weaknesses. The Vendor indicates a great likelihood for effective, efficient, and innovative performance and includes significant potential for improved overall program compliance, responsiveness, and measurable customer satisfaction.

Very Good The Vendor’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in full achievement of the Government’s objectives with minimal risk. A “Very Good” rating indicates that the quote contains significant strengths and few weaknesses. The Vendor indicates a high probability for effective, efficient, and innovative performance and includes solutions for improving overall program compliance, responsiveness, and measurable customer satisfaction.

Acceptable The Vendor’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, introduce moderate risk but are considered likely to produce performance results meeting the Government’s objectives. An “Acceptable” rating indicates that the proposed solution contains a number of strengths, but also some weaknesses.

Unacceptable

The Vendor’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, would introduce excessive risk, making it highly unlikely that performance would meet the Government’s objectives. An “Unacceptable” rating indicates that the weaknesses of the proposed solutions significantly exceed any strength.

Adjectival Past Performance

Outstanding The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that DHS can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with very low risk.

Very Good The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that DHS may expect highly satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with minimal risk.

Acceptable The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the DHS may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort.

The Vendor’s past performance record reflects minimal prior DHS experience and suggests some risk.

Unacceptable

The Vendor’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Vendor’s performance record, as applicable, suggests a high degree of risk.

Neutral

A “Neutral” rating indicates a Vendor without a record of past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available.