Evaluation_Criteria_for_Award_Draft_6.4.18.pdf

United States Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Assessing Evidence of Effectiveness in Adult Education

RFP # TBD

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The U.S. Department of Education will base the source selection decision for this procurement on the following evaluation criteria. Technical Merit will be determined on the basis of the following evaluation factors.

A. Soundness of the Technical Approach—40 Points

The Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates understanding of the goals and context of the procurement, and provides a sound plan for executing the procurement. More specifically, the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates:

Capability of achieving the goals of the procurement with minimal intervention by the

Department as evidenced by the clarity, rigor, policy relevance, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of the Offeror’s plan for addressing the key questions and conducting each task; identification of potential challenges and the quality of recommended solutions; and an appropriate balance between creativity and rigor, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness

Knowledge of the context of the procurement as evidenced by attention to relevant prior evidence and content throughout the technical approach

Writing skill as evidenced in an approach that is well-organized, clear, and concise while providing an appropriate level of detail

B. Quality of Staffing and Management Plan—40 Points

The Offeror’s staffing plan demonstrates that the proposed team has combined content-area expertise, knowledge of the study methodology, and successful past experience in similar roles on projects of similar content, methodology, complexity, scope, sample size, and data collection modes to this procurement. More specifically, the Offeror’s staffing plan demonstrates:

Clarity of task and management roles for all proposed staff; proposed roles that are well-aligned to the level of effort and to clearly-identified staff experience, knowledge, and skills relevant to this procurement

The leadership team (Project Director, Deputy Project Director, and/or Principal Investigator) --has experience and skill in leading, managing, designing, and conducting all aspects of evaluations (preferably in education settings) that are similar to this procurement in content (e.g., adult education), methodology (e.g., feasibility and design studies, systematic evidence reviews, randomized controlled trials), complexity (e.g., recruitment effort), scope (e.g., national), sample size, and data collection modes (e.g., data matching with administrative records, study-administered assessments, surveys of adults)

Procedures for managing staff and controlling work performance efficiently and effectively, including clear lines of authority within and across tasks, assigning responsibilities and monitoring staff, promoting communication, resolving problems, overseeing and integrating work of subcontractors and/or consultants, and ensuring work quality and timeliness.

C. Relevant Corporate Experience—10 Points

The proposal demonstrates that the Offeror played a similar role in leading, managing, designing, and conducting previous evaluations (preferably in education settings) that are similar to this procurement in content (e.g., adult education), methodology (e.g., feasibility and design studies, systematic evidence reviews, randomized controlled trials), complexity (e.g., recruitment effort), scope (e.g., national), sample size, and data collection modes (e.g., data matching with administrative records, study-administered assessments, surveys of adults).

D. Vendor Past Performance—10 Points

The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a record of positive past performance on quality, problem resolution, timeliness, cost control, and customer service without any valid negative information. The evaluation of past performance will take into consideration the extent to which the projects are similar to this procurement in content, methodology, complexity, scope, sample size, and data collection modes. Sources for the evaluation of past performance will include official CPARS ratings for relevant work, contact with clients of cited relevant work, and optional references submitted by the Offeror. If there is no past performance information available that is relevant to the procurement on any of the factors listed in the

Relevant Corporate Experience criterion, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the basis of past performance.

E. Substantive Small Business Participation—10 Points

If the proposed prime contractor is an other than small business (large business), the Offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting plan includes substantive work in a meaningful capacity to be subcontracted to small businesses with documented capability to complete that work. A meaningful capacity for substantive work as described here includes work other than courier services, office supplies or travel services. A meaningful capacity is one in which small businesses are performing work for which they are qualified, under a particular task that is integral to the successful completion of the respective task(s), and ultimately, to the procurement as a whole. Please note that FAR Clause

19.702(a)(1) requires the interested offeror to propose an acceptable small business subcontracting plan, or the offeror may be rated as ineligible for award. If the Large Business offeror provides a small business subcontracting plan that does not or cannot meet the Department’s stated goals in the solicitation, the plan should provide enough information detailing the rationale to not do so.

If the proposed prime contractor is a small business, the Offeror will automatically receive 10 points under this criterion if the proposal demonstrates that the small business is capable of credibly performing at least 51 percent of the budgeted work.

TOTAL POINTS = 110