Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offerors_Revised.pdf

330 Independence Avenue SW | Washington, DC 20237 | usagm.gov

INTRODUCTION TO OFFERORS

PROPOSAL FORMAT

Failure to submit ALL required documents described herein or to follow the required proposal format (with the exception of page limits, where USAGM will not review any information on the pages exceeding the page limit) may result in a determination that the Offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable” and may be removed from the competition. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall include a transmittal letter and the Proposal Sections listed below. The transmittal letter shall identify the name of the company submitting the proposal and any other documents that are attached.

The offeror’s transmittal and cover letter for the proposal must contain the following information:

1. Unique Entity Identification (UEI) number

2. Company name mailing address, and website address.

3. Date submitted and Proposal expiration date.

4. Type of company (i.e., small business, 8(a), woman owned, veteran owned, etc.). As validated is the System for Award Management (SAM)

5. Company point of contact, name and title, phone and e-mail address.

Written sections of the proposal shall be formatted as follows:

a. Page Size: 8 ½ x 11” with at least 1” margins on all sides

b. Font Size: 12 point or larger (font size for graphics and tables may be smaller but not less than 10 point)

c. Page Numbering: Pages consecutively numbered within each section

d. Page Count/Page Limitations:

Title pages, tables of contents, and section dividers are not included in the page limitation for each Proposal Section identified on page 2;

appendices, graphs and charts are included in the page limitations for each Proposal Section identified on page 2 unless otherwise specified.

e. Format: Two-column format is permitted.

Offerors are cautioned that they must not exceed the page limitations cited below. Any pages that exceed the page limitations cited above will not be read or considered.

Proposal Section Format Page Limitation Volume I – Executive Summary Written 2 pages Volume II - Technical Approach Written 5 Pages

Volume III - Past Performance Written 5 pages Volume IV - Price Written 1 page

Proposals shall be delivered via email to the following electronic mail (email) address:

cjordan@usagm.gov and USAGMRFQCON@usagm.gov. The email’s subject line shall be structured as follows: [Solicitation Title] – [Company Name]. For example, RFP for Qualitative and Quantitative Research Surveys – ABC Company.

Unnecessarily elaborate proposals, or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete and effective response to this solicitation are not desired and may be construed as an indication of the Offeror’s lack of cost consciousness. Elaborate artwork is neither necessary nor desired.

Electronic Submission of Proposal: When submitting a proposal via email, the Offeror must ensure that its submission is readable, in the format specified in the solicitation, and has been verified as free of computer viruses. Prior to any evaluation, USAGM will check all files for viruses and ensure that all information is readable. In the event any files are defective (unreadable), the USAGM shall only evaluate the readable electronic files. Further, if defective (unreadable) media renders a deficiency in the Offeror's proposal, the USAGM shall consider the proposal incomplete and non-responsive and remove the proposal from further consideration.

Each Proposal Section (such as Past Performance or Management Approach) must be submitted as a separate Volume. Each Proposal Section that may contain computations must be submitted separately as an Excel files and clearly labelled. USAGM will not require evaluators to search other Proposal Sections for information. If information is not placed in the appropriate Proposal Section, that Proposal Section may be deemed “Unacceptable”, and an Offeror’s proposal may be removed from the competition. Therefore, the offeror shall ensure that each Proposal Section is submitted in accordance with the instructions discussed herein. Each Proposal Section must be written on a stand-alone basis. In other words, USAGM evaluators must be able to evaluate each Section Proposal independently from the other Section Proposals.

VOLUME I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – Identify at minimum the contractor’s name, UEI, Cage Code, Tax Identification Number (TIN), and any other necessary information. Please acknowledge that the USAGM requires that offers remain effective for a period of 120 calendar days from receipt of proposals.

VOLUME II - FACTOR 1 – Technical Approach - No pricing information is to be provided in the Technical Proposal Volume II. The Offeror shall provide a technical narrative addressing its technical approach. (Please refer to the solicitation’s Statement of Work (SOW) and evaluation factors for additional information).

VOLUME III FACTOR 2 – Past Performance – Offerors shall submit the required information regarding their past performance record. The Offeror shall provide past performance information mailto:cjordan@usagm.gov mailto:USAGMRFQCON@usagm.gov for three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies, state/local governments and/or commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Relevant contracts include contracts similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.

The Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) shall be submitted by the customer reference (see Attachment 3 PPQs) directly to the Contract Specialist (CS) at cjordan@usagm.gov and USAGMRFQCON@usagm.gov. Page limitations of 5 pages outlined the Proposal Section are exclusive of PPQs. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure PPQs are submitted. All PPQs references must be for non-USAGM contracts. Please refer to the solicitation’s SOW and evaluation factors for additional information. The Government will accept CPARs reports in lieu of PPQs when available. The offerors shall include a copy of the CPARs report as part of their submission for Volume III. The CPARS reports will not count against the page limit for Volume

III.

VOLUME IV FACTOR 3 – Price – Pricing information shall be mentioned only in the Price Proposal section and Price Sheet, and no other sections of your proposal. Included in the price proposal, offerors should provide a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) to perform the services as required in the SOW. The FFP shall include all costs, indirect and direct as applicable, and travel.

LATE SUBMISSIONS, MODIFICATIONS AND WITHDRAWALS OF OFFERS

Offerors are responsible for submitting offers, and any modifications or withdrawals, so as to reach the office of contracting designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation. Any offer, modification, or withdrawal received at contracting office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt of offers is “late” and will not be considered.

BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to conduct the acquisition in accordance with FAR Part 12. This requirement will be evaluated based on Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. In determining which proposal provides the best value to the Government, non-price, technical approach and past performance evaluation factors are equal to each other, and when combined are more important than the evaluated price. An evaluation will be made of each offeror’s proposal.

While the Government evaluation teams will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the process.

Based upon the results of the integrated assessment of the technical and cost/price proposals, the Government may make an award to other than the lowest-priced offeror or the offeror with the highest technical score if the source selection official determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.

DETERMINATION OF BEST VALUE:

The USAGM will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate offers. They are listed in descending order of importance:

mailto:cjordan@usagm.gov mailto:USAGMRFQCON@usagm.gov

1. Technical Approach

2. Past Performance

3. Price

Evaluation factors other than Price (Technical Approach and Past Performance) when combined are significantly more important that Price.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with contractors.

Therefore, the contractor’s initial proposal should contain the contractor’s best terms from a technical standpoint.

USAGM will not, in any case, make award to a contractor it considers to have substandard capabilities. If the contractor’s proposal is determined low confidence in either of the technical evaluation factors, the proposal may not be considered for award.

Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Evaluation factors other than Price (Technical Approach and Past Performance) when combined are significantly more important that Price.

Technical Factors for Qualitative Task Area

Factor 1: Technical Approach

The contractor will be evaluated on the methodology that secures the most robust feedback from participants on their assessment of news content or their media preferences. Contractors shall submit examples reflecting the type of project on which they intend to bid.

1. The contractor shall describe, in detail:

a. Understanding of the complexity of networks and language services.

b. Understanding of the agency’s derived variables, and how they contribute to key performance indicators reported at the country-, network-, and global levels.

c. Experience reviewing and unifying datasets for media and/or market research organizations, using software development to automate data transformation activities.

d. In-depth experience advising media and/or market research organizations on transformational data management

e. In-depth experience with administering and working with data from Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CATI) and Computer Assisted Web Interviewing (CAPI) surveys in countries outside of the United States.

f. In-depth experience performing quality control measures on CATI and CAPI survey data. Proposed methods of identifying data anomalies that could belie interviewer and administration errors

2. The contractor shall submit one example of data dictionaries, codebooks, scripting, data quality control deliverables on similar, previous projects. The examples do not have to have actual data; rather they should be examples of templates or tools.

Factors 2: Past Performance

The contractor will be evaluated on the relevance and quality of past performance. Contractors shall provide details about its performance of similar work.

Past Performance is defined as a measure of how well the contractor has performed under previous efforts of similar size, scope, and complexity. USAGM’s evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on information provided by the contractor and information obtained independently from a variety of public and private sources including the references provided in the proposal.

The evaluation will consider:

1. Quality of Service and Technical Expertise – Compliance with contract requirements;

customer satisfaction; etc.

2. Timeliness of Performance – Reliable; responsive to technical direction; adhered to contract schedule; tasks completed/provided on-time; no history of significant performance penalties.

3. Business Relations – Effective and efficient management; businesslike correspondence;

responsive to contract requirements; prompt notification of problems; flexible; pro-active; responsive to inquiries, prompt notification of problems and problem resolution, customer satisfaction, effective and efficient contractor recommended solutions.

4. Personnel Management – Work force properly trained and given proper direction to ensure that required tasks are successfully performed.

NOTE: Contractors shall only include the information required above in the Past Performance Proposal Section. The USAGM will not evaluate or consider other information including Past Performance information in other Proposal Sections submitted under this solicitation.

Contractors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, but will receive a neutral rating. However, the proposal of a contractor with no relevant past performance history may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the USAGM. The Past Performance assessment will be used as a means to determine USAGM’s confidence in the contractor meeting the requirements of the SOW.

The contractor shall provide past performance information for three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies, state/local governments and/or commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Relevant contracts include contracts similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The PPQ shall be submitted by the contractor’s customer reference (see the attached PPQ to this solicitation) directly to the CS. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure PPQs are submitted.

The summaries of three relevant projects performed in the last three (3) years (from the date the solicitation is issued) shall include:

1. Project name, contract and/or task order number;

2. Contract dollar value;

3. Period of performance;

4. Customer point of contact (including name, work number, cell number, and email address);

5. Detailed description of work performed;

6. Roles and responsibilities;

7. Results achieved

Factor 3: Price

Included in the proposal, Offeror should provide a FFP to perform the services as required in the SOW. The FFP shall include all costs, indirect and direct as applicable, and travel.

Project component: Cost (in USD):

Total cost (in USD):

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

There are three (3) evaluation factors: one (1) technical, one (1) past performance, and (1) price.

The USAGM will evaluate the one (1) technical evaluation factors using the three confidence rating definitions: High Confidence, Some Confidence, and Low Confidence. If two or more technical factors are rated Low Confidence, it will result in an overall rating of Low Confidence.

Technical Proposal Rating:

Confidence Rating Description High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the contractor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention

The Past Performance evaluation factor will be evaluated using five confidence level ratings:

High Level of Confidence, Moderate Level of Confidence, Low Level of Confidence, No Confidence, and Neutral. Past Performance assessments will help the USAGM predict how a contractor will perform based on contract performance on requirements of similar type, size, and complexity. A contractor without any past performance will receive a neutral rating.

Past Performance Rating:

Past Performance Rating Adjective Description High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s recent and relevant past performance is very relevant to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The offeror’s recent and relevant past performance is relevant to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s recent and relevant past performance is at least somewhat relevant to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

No Confidence The offeror’s recent and relevant past performance is not relevant to this acquisition, and does not meet the minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable substantial effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is no confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Neutral In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii), and (iv).]

SOLICITATION REQUIREMENT, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical approach requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions and conditions of the solicitation may result if the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

LATE SUBMISSIONS, MODIFICATIONS AND WITHDRAWALS OF OFFERS