Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Addendum 52.212-1—Instructions to Vendors- Commercial Items (April 2014)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) is issuing this Request for Proposal (RFP) as a 100% small business set-aside. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this requirement is 541512, Computer System Design Services. The size standard is $24.5M. The Department intends to award a fixed price, single award Contract as a result of this RFP. The period of performance will consist of one 12-month base year with four 12-month option years.

The Department’s obligation under this Contract is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Department for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer (CO) for this contract and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the CO.

The offeror is expected to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the proposed tasks and the existing resources, as specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The quote should address the requirements in the PWS, not simply repeat the language. The quote should be written in enough detail to enable the Department to perform a comprehensive evaluation based on its full merits.

Although the intent of each task is spelled out in the PWS, it is incumbent upon the vendor to propose the most effective method for executing the tasks and the most feasible timeline and dates for all key activities.

Offerors are encouraged to exercise independent judgment with respect to the best methods of attaining the objectives of this task order.

The vendor’s proposal must be submitted electronically. The proposal must be received by the Department before the proposal submission deadline. Proposals must remain valid for a period of 60 days after proposal submission. It is the responsibility of the offeror to allow adequate time to submit the proposal’s files before the proposal submission deadline. Vendors must have an active registration with the Department’s System for Award Management, SAM.gov, at time of proposal submission.

The proposal must be received at or before March 25, 2025, by 2:00 PM ET. Proposals must be submitted electronically to the Points of Contact listed below:

• Michael Rivera, Contract Specialist (Email: michael.rivera@ed.gov)

• Katie Opper, Contracting Officer (Email: katie.opper@ed.gov)

The Department’s email system cannot handle emails larger than 20 Megabytes (MB). Proposal submissions must be broken up into separate emails if necessary to accommodate size limitations, with each email identified (e.g., Company Proposal Submission 1 of 3, Company Proposal Submission 2 of 3, etc.).

Electronic file names must not contain special characters (e.g., #, *, ?, (, ), {, }, %, >, <, /, \, $, |). Quotations will not be accepted after the proposal submission deadline date and time. Proposals will be rejected for surpassing the email size limitation, so please allow enough time for proposal submissions. A confirmation receipt will be sent from the Contract Specialist (CS) when the proposal is received.

All questions in response to this RFP must be received at or before March 5, 2025, at 2:00 PM ET.

Questions submitted after this date and time will not be considered unless the CO/EPD determines mailto:michael.rivera@ed.gov) mailto:katie.opper@ed.gov) otherwise. Questions must be submitted electronically to the Points of Contact listed below:

• Michael Rivera, Contract Specialist (Email: michael.rivera@ed.gov)

• Katie Opper, Contracting Officer (Email: katie.opper@ed.gov)

Offerors must submit questions in an MS Excel file following a format like the table below:

Questions Format Question No. Reference Question

Category Question

RFP, PWS, or attachments, and Section

Contrac t o

Question

Answers to submitted questions will be provided to all vendors via SAM.gov via an RFP amendment.

Failure to comply with the Instructions to Offerors and RFP requirements may result in the proposal being removed from the competition as the Department reserves the right to eliminate proposals that do not conform to the RFP and Instructions to Offerors. Any exceptions to the RFP’s terms and conditions must be fully explained in writing with supporting justification to the CO for consideration.

The proposals must consist of three (3) volumes. The Volumes are: (1) Executive Summary, (2) Technical Proposal, and (3) Price/Business Proposal. The Volumes and page limitations are shown in Table 1, below.

Non-conforming proposals may or may not be considered for award. Proposals must be complete for consideration. Proposals that do not include all required volumes and attachments in accordance with these Instructions for Offerors may or may not be evaluated nor considered for award. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that the Department receives complete proposals, conforming to all RFP instructions before the Submission Due Date and Time.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

1. The offeror’s proposal must include all information requested and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any offeror who submits an incomplete proposal may not be evaluated. The offeror must be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Non-conformance with the instructions provided may result in the proposal being determined non- responsive and will disqualify the proposal from consideration.

2. The offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best efforts to respond to the RFP. All inconsistencies, whether real or apparent, between the conveyed performance and price must be explained in the proposal.

The evaluation will be based on an assessment of the information submitted in the offeror’s proposal and other evaluation information available to the Department. All assumptions will be evaluated as part of the individual factor or sub-factor to which they apply. The Department reserves the right to reject any proposal that includes any assumption(s) or conditions that impact or affect satisfying the Department’s requirements.

3. Content Requirements. All information must be confined to the appropriate Volume. Proprietary information must be clearly marked as such. Each Volume of the proposal must consist of a Title Page (Title of the Volume), Table of Contents, and the narrative or information being requested within the mailto:michael.rivera@ed.gov) mailto:katie.opper@ed.gov) instructions to offerors. Appendices must have a Title Page (Name of Appendix, i.e., Appendix 1, Appendix 2, Appendix 3).

4. No pricing information must be in any Volumes other than the Price/Business Proposal. The Technical Proposal will NOT contain any reference to specific prices.

5. Each Volume must be submitted separately in accordance with Table 1 below. Each Volume must be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other Volumes of the proposal. Each evaluation subfactor response must be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other evaluation subfactors or Volumes.

6. The use of hyperlinks in the proposal is prohibited.

7. Proposals must adhere to the page count limitations below. Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated.

8. Each file name submitted must be with the Volume number first, then the Volume Title/Description, then Web Data Collection, and lastly the company name which may be abbreviated. For example, “Vol 1 Technical Web Data Collection Company Name”.

9. Contents of files must print on Letter 8 ½” by 11”. The technical proposal must be submitted searchable PDF format. The proposal should be written in no smaller than 12-point font for text, 12- point font or larger for tables, 10-point font or larger for graphics, and double-spaced. Margins should be no smaller than 1 inch on all sides.

10. The Technical Proposal must be limited to a total of 40 pages. The page limit excludes only the cover page; the table of contents; and Appendices.

11. File Packaging: Files must be in read-only format, using PDF files, except that all price breakdown information must be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel unprotected format and viewable in Microsoft Excel versions 2010 and later. Please note – Self extracting .exe files are not acceptable.

Table 1: Proposal Volumes and Descriptions

Volume Number

Volume Title Description Page Maximum

1 Executive Summary

Not an evaluation factor N/A

Technical Proposal

Evaluation Factor I: Technical

Subfactor A – Quality and Credibility of Approach to PWS

Subfactor B – Qualifications of the Project Staff

Subfactor C – Soundness of Management Plan

Subfactor D – Corporate Experience

40 pages

Subfactor E – Past Performance

3 Price/Busines s Proposal

Evaluation Factor II Price/Business Proposal

N/A

PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

Volume 1 - Executive Summary: Within this section, the offeror must provide a Title Page, a Table of Contents. This Volume must include the following information: (1) RFP number; (2) Company’s Name, address, SAM unique entity ID, Tax ID No.; (3) requirement title; (4) point of contact and alternate contract, including last name, first name, telephone, and email; (5) administrative point of contact, including last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, and email (this is the individual that will be administering the contract in accordance with clause 306-8 (CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR FEB 1985);

(6) date proposal submitted; (7) proposal expiration date (valid minimum 60 calendar days); (8) SAM record print out of the company/offeror ’s “Core Data.”; (9) Completed Representations and Certifications or provide a statement that states that the Representations and Certifications located within SAM.gov for “Your Company’s Name Here”, is current accurate and complete. (10) Completed RFP Provisions as required to include 3452.209-70 CONFLICT OF INTEREST CERTIFICATION (MAY 2011) (Both Prime and Subcontractors). (11) Written acknowledgement of all amendments either by providing a statement, “Contractor acknowledges all amendments” or provide signed SF30(s) within the Executive Summary. (12) Place of Performance, full address to include zip code.

Volume 2 – Evaluation Factor I – Technical Approach:

The technical quote shall contain the following:

a. Table of Contents. The quote shall include a Table of Contents to highlight the structure of the technical quote and to list the main authors of each section.

b. Introduction. The Introduction shall briefly describe the offeror’s overall plan for achieving the objectives of this work as expressly described in the PWS. This should include the offeror’s proposed solution and any methodologies, tools and products used to deliver the proposed solution, including the applicability of these methodologies, tools and products to meeting the objectives stated in the PWS.

Additionally, the introduction shall include a brief summary of the offeror’s qualifications and unique strengths relevant to performing the tasks identified in the PWS.

c. Technical Approach. This section shall fully describe the technical and theoretical approach the offeror shall employ to meet the Department’s operational requirements as stated in the PWS. While a general statement of strategy is appropriate, offerors should be specific with regard to how they will perform each task and sub-task and should reflect efficient utilization of the offeror’s resources, such as leveraging prior Federal investments, to meet the Department’s operational requirements. Some important notes are listed below for specific tasks.

The offerors shall also identify potential and/or anticipated risks and challenges or problems and propose refinements to the design of the work, the time frame for completing tasks, and/or deliverable due dates to better ensure successful completion of the PWS tasks and objectives.

d. Key Personnel. The offeror shall propose SMEs with appropriate knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience to support the Department’s requirements as expressly stated in the PWS. The quote shall describe in detail the qualifications of key personnel and their assigned roles and responsibilities, including detailing their competencies and experience in performing work of similar size, scope and complexity to the work expressly identified in the PWS.

The offeror’s proposed staff must possess knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience in the following functional areas:

(a) Knowledge of federal contract management.

(b) Knowledge of NCES Statistical, Style, and Web Standards.

(c) Developing, maintaining, updating web-based data collections for large scale surveys.

(d) Experience responding to public inquiries.

(e) Knowledge of complex survey design; (d) Knowledge of OPE postsecondary data, data products and reports, including IPEDS, CSS, EADA, CATC.

(f) Knowledge of how OPE data collections share data.

(g) Experience staffing a help desk, including training staff who work on the help desk, and creation of training materials.

(h) Knowledge of Title IV legislation, and the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) and how it applies to the programs in this contract.

(i) Experience writing and updating electronic code books and other data related technical documents; (j) Experience writing and updating instructional handbooks.

(k) Data analysis; including use of statistical software packages (SAS and SPSS, etc.).

(l) Experience responding to public inquiries.

(m) knowledge of process whereby recognition is granted by the Department to State agencies for accreditation.

(n) Proposed staff must be able to obtain the necessary and appropriate security clearance to complete the work outlined in the PWS.

The offeror shall include specific details regarding the commitment of time (e.g., percentage of time dedicated to the task order and the associated level of effort) for all key personnel proposed to support this task order.

The proposed key staff section should clearly indicate the relationship between past staff experience and proposed task assignments for this task order.

Resumes shall be included for all key staff for this task order, including key staff from subcontractors, and consultants. Resumes should document only directly related experience, educational background, publications, and professional activities. All resumes should share a common format and organization. A letter of commitment from all proposed consultants and key staff not currently employed by the offeror should be included. The need for any proposed consultants shall also be fully justified, including how they would contribute to the project.

If key personnel are unknown at the time of submission, a position description (including job duties, qualifications required, and selection criteria) should be substituted for resumes.

The Department of Education shall review all key personnel resumes to ensure that personnel have adequate and substantive experiences and knowledge in the above referenced areas. By listing key personnel as part of the quote, the offeror is making a firm commitment to use said personnel to carry out the activities in the performance work statement.

The offeror shall disclose all existing contractual obligations for each key staff member proposed that will continue during the anticipated period of performance of this task order. This should also include identification of the funding sources for the existing projects and the percentage of time dedicated to each of these projects.

e. Experience; Past Performance; Institutional Capacity. This section should fully describe the offeror’s organizational capacity and ability to perform all phases of work associated with the tasks and sub-tasks identified in the PWS. The offeror should describe its past and current experience in conducting projects of a similar or comparable nature as well as its experience with different Federal programs. Brief summaries of such work should be submitted, including the names, current affiliations, and current telephone numbers of appropriate references. Include also: (1) vehicle number and type; (2) funding agency (DOL, HHS, etc.); (3) original dollar value and final dollar value (including options; if applicable);

(4) original completion date and final (or current) completion date; (5) description of the scope of the project or contract; (6) relevance of the work to the work described in this PWS; (7) performance experience summary; (8) methodology(ies) and tool(s) used; (9) challenges in the effort and how they were overcome;

and (10) an explanation of why the effort was considered “successful.”

It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure that telephone numbers and points of contact for references are current and accurate. Inability to contact references may impact the Department’s ability to perform a complete evaluation of past performance which could impact the evaluated score. The Department also reserves the right to obtain past performance information from other sources.

f. Management Plan. The offeror shall provide a summary description of its internal management control system that will be used for planning, scheduling, budgeting, managing, and reporting the accomplishments of this requirement. The proposed management system should include procedures for effective management of project resources, procedures for controlling the quality of products/services, and procedures for early identification of potential problems in carrying out task activities. The offeror must describe how the internal management control system will be applied to the work of this quote as specified in the PWS and the Evaluation Criteria.

The quote shall provide details about how the offeror will coordinate and communicate with OPE/PPI via conference calls and face-to-face meetings.

In addition to describing the management system, the offeror should present the following information in an Appendix to the Management Plan (please note that the pages contained in this Appendix shall not be counted against the 40-page limitation):

• Sub-contractual arrangements including the work to be done, responsibilities for tasks, reporting arrangements, and any other terms of the agreement. A letter from the proposed subcontractor delineating the nature of the agreement must be included.

• Time commitments for each staff member proposed (including subcontractor personnel, consultants, and any other proposed personnel), to be expressed in person-hours and shown in tabular form as follows:

Staff/Consultant T a s k

T o t a l

F T E

% time on other Federal Projects

% time on non- Federal Projects

It is important that offerors report this information separately for each performance period identified in the request for quotations. In addition, the offeror should outline all existing obligations over the period of the task order for staff proposed for the task order, including the percentage of time allotted to existing projects.

The chart must include a total for each task and for the entire task order.

• A schedule of task activities and the delivery of products in calendar weeks from the effective date of the task order.

• Charts (e.g., GANTT charts) showing the interrelationship of tasks plotted on a time scale.

• Time for any contractor internal review and clearance procedures as well as Department review.

• Listings of materials or services the offeror expects the Department to make available (e.g., data, reports, etc.).

In summary, the management approach should provide assurance that all tasks will be completed on time, and with a high level of quality. For planning purposes, the contract award is planned for June 2025.

g. Use of Subcontractor and Consultants. Quotes may include plans to subcontract part of the work, provided that evidence is presented that any proposed subcontractor is fully capable of performing the assigned tasks and that the offeror has effective control of the participation of the subcontractor(s) in the project. Quotes should identify consultants and the role each will fill in performing the task order. Letters from proposed subcontractors/consultants indicating their willingness to serve, if selected, must be included with the offeror’s quote.

Volume 3 – Evaluation Factor II - Price/Business Proposal The offeror must submit a Price/Business Proposal. Prior to submission, the offeror must verify that the contents of the Price/Business Proposal (PDF and Microsoft Excel Workbook) are mathematically accurate (including rounding), and the supporting data reconciles in the proposal. The Price/Business Proposal must contain all of the Department requested information. Information must be completed and in sufficient detail for the Department to make a fair and reasonable price determination. The CO may reject a proposal if proposed prices are found not to be fair and reasonable. There is no page limitation to the Price/Business Proposal.

The Price/Business Proposal cover page must include the following information:

a. Cover page: A cover sheet with the name and address of the firm and the offeror’s unique entity ID number, signed by an officer of the firm. The cover sheet should also include the date, the point of contact (name, phone number, email address) of a company representative who can answer any questions that the Department may have and is authorized to conduct negotiations on behalf of the offeror.

b. Statements: The Price/Business Proposal must include a statement advising that the proposal is firm for a period of at least 60 calendar days from the proposal submission date and a statement certifying that the offeror has an active SAM registration. The offeror must have an active SAM registration at time of proposal submittal to be eligible for award.

c. Abstract: A one-page summary must be provided, abstracting the proposal’s contents in language understandable to an informed layperson. The abstract must indicate full acceptance of the RFP’s requirements or provide detailed exceptions to the RFP or assumption justifications.

d. Price/Business Proposal Details: At the beginning of the Price/Business Proposal, there must be a summary table showing the offeror’s prices, which includes the base year requirement and all option periods of performance. The table below is provided as an example summary. The Department will evaluate the offeror’s Price/Business Proposal is based on Total Evaluated Price, which is calculated using the following formula: (Base Year + Option Year 1+ Option Year 2+ Option Year 3 + Option Year 4 + 52.217-8 Option = Total Price). The price for the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.217-8 extension period will be calculated by utilizing the Option Year 4 price and dividing it by 2.

e. Labor Categories and Labor Rates: The offeror must submit a complete Per-Task/Sub-Task Price Buildup. All mathematical/computational sections must be submitted in a Microsoft Excel Workbook file, with all formulas preserved for the Department’s review. Offerors may add additional worksheets to Attachment 1 or provide a separate Microsoft Excel Workbook file. The complete price build‐up for this contract must include the identification of proposed labor categories by named individuals, their functional labor category, level of effort, loaded hourly rate, extended labor price (i.e., labor hours x hourly labor rate), and other direct costs. Sample table provided below. The proposed price must be presented by task and subtask.

Labor Category

Basic Period Of Performa nce

Option Year 1

Option Year 2

Option Year 3

Option Year 4

Sample:

Project Director

$123.45/ Hour

$134.56/ Hour

$145.67/H our

$156.78/H our

$167.89/H our

The labor category by named individual must match resume name provided within the technical portion of the response. The Price/Business Proposal must describe any applicable assumptions used to formulate the

Bas e Yea r

Op tio n Ye ar

Opt ion s Ye ar

Op tio n Ye ar

Opt ion Yea r 4

52.2 17- Op tio n

T ot al Pr ic e

Web Data Collection price build‐up. If a percentage rate is applied (e.g., “Technology Fee” at x%), the percentage and the rate the percentage is applied to must be clearly disclosed in the Price/Business Proposal (e.g., 40% of total labor costs). Offerors are encouraged to justify any proposed indirect rate(s) by explaining such rate’s purpose and providing evidence of its reasonableness.

Offerors are encouraged to propose discounted rates to improve the competitiveness of their proposal. The labor mix and labor categories proposed must be consistent with the personnel proposed in the Technical Proposal in sufficient detail for the Department to have a reasonable understanding of the offeror’s planned technical approach, and the ability to review the consistency between the planned technical approach and the proposed pricing.

If the offeror proposes subcontractors, a separate price buildup (by task/subtask) must be submitted for each proposed subcontractor, and the subcontractor prices must be included in the offeror's total, firm‐fixed price, for the Task Order. The master price buildup for the Task Order, must clearly show which costs are associated with the offeror and which costs are associated with each subcontractor.

The subcontractor price buildup may be provided as a separate Microsoft Excel file or worksheets can be added to Attachment 1. If proprietary data will not be shared between the offeror and subcontractor(s), each subcontractor’s Price/Business Volume may be submitted as a sealed volume directly to the CO and CS via email.

f. Completed Microsoft Excel Price Schedule (Attachment 1): To be considered for award, an offeror must complete in its entirety the Price Schedule, Attachment 1. Failing to use the provided Department Attachment 1 or tampering with the descriptions or quantities or tabs of the workbook will result in the entire business proposal as non-responsive. The following Price Schedule tabs must be completed: Price Schedule Price Summary, Price Schedule Base Year, Price Schedule Option Period 1, Price Schedule Option Period 2, Price Schedule Option Period 3, and Price Schedule Option Period 4. The instructions provided in Attachment 1 must be followed. Some line items contain optional tasks and may be exercised at the discretion of the Department. The offeror must provide proposed pricing for option periods 1-4 because the Department will have the option to exercise or not exercise the optional periods of performance under the Task Order for all or part of the line items in any given Task Order period of performance. Some of the optional tasks of the Task Order are quantity/unit based and are identified as such within the Price Schedule. Exceptions to the completion of the price schedule must be fully described in the narrative. Taking exception to the Excel Price schedule may result in a non-responsive proposal.

g. Payment Schedules: The offeror must submit a proposed payment schedule for the Task Order as separate Microsoft Excel file or separate tab/worksheet within Attachment 1 Price Schedule. The payment schedule must be associated with each deliverable identified in the PWS. Ongoing tasks may be broken down into monthly payments, but discrete deliverables must have discrete payments associated with them based on completion of a milestone associated with that deliverable.

The individual task proposed pricing amounts must total the contract proposed price amount.

The payment schedule need not reference the deliverable due date, but must use the following format example:

Task

ID

Task Descript ion

Acceptanc e Criteria or Notes

Base Year

OY1 OY2 OY

OY4 52.21

7-8 Optio n

Exa mple

Task 1.1

Project Manage ment and Reportin g

Meeting agenda provided 2 days prior to the meeting

Task 1.2

Planning and Reportin g

Within [30] days of Award, the project plans are submitted.

Meeting notes and action items submitted 1 day after the meeting

Task

Operatio ns and Mainten ance Plans and updates

Plans for O&M are discussed on a regular basis with COR and updates are included in Monthly Reporting.

As stated, the payment triggers should be based on accomplishments (e.g., submitting a deliverable, meeting a milestone), as opposed the passage of time (e.g., monthly). Please note that an offeror may not propose even payments divided by monthly deliverables across the entire period of performance (e.g., an offeror may not propose 60 even payments and tie those even payments to a deliverable).

The payment schedule shall also delineate IT costs from non-IT costs.

h. Conflict of Interest Plan

The offeror shall submit a Conflict of Interest Plan (“Plan”), providing details on its policies and procedures to identify and avoid potential organizational or personnel conflicts of interest (or apparent conflicts of interest). The Plan should also address procedures taken to neutralize or mitigate such conflicts, if they have not been or cannot be avoided. The Plan should indicate that such policies and procedures are operative throughout the period of outside activities’ financial interests, or other significant connections or identifications that would establish, or give the appearance of establishing, a conflict of interest. A method for periodically reviewing financial interests of employees, subcontractors and consultants, and their immediate families, in order to assess actual or apparent conflicts of interest, should be included in the Plan.

The term, “potential conflict” means a reasonably foreseeable conflict of interest.

The thoroughness, completeness and effectiveness of the Plan shall be evaluated as part of the offeror’s overall quote. The Plan will be incorporated into the contract awarded to the successful offeror.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Criteria for Offerors

The proposals received for Web Data Collection will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria contained below. Award of Web Data Collection will be made on a competitive best value basis, and all non-price factors individually and when combined are more important than Price. Although price is an important factor, technical merit is more important than price.

The non-price evaluation factors (1-5) are listed in descending order of importance.

The evaluation factors are as follows:

Technical Evaluation Criteria – Summary

Criteria

1. Quality and credibility of the general approach to the Performance Work Statement

2. Qualifications of the project staff

3. Soundness of the management plan and task/time commitments of staff

4. Corporate expertise, capability and oversight

5. Past performance

Factor 1 through 5 as well as the overall proposal, shall be rated as “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable.” These terms are defined as follows:

Outstanding: The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which should clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. The proposed approach includes strength(s), and contains no weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies. The solutions proposed are considered low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements, and can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

Good: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This approach includes strength(s) and may include weaknesses but contains no significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements, and can be expected to result in better than satisfactory performance.

Marginal: The proposal demonstrates an approach which might be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives through discussions. The approach may have strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses but contains no deficiencies. In addition, the combined advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are for the most part clear, precise, and supported, demonstrate a general understanding of all the requirements, and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance with minor government intervention and requires discussions.

Unacceptable: The proposal demonstrates an approach which will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has one or more weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity or precision, are unsupported, or indicate a lack of understanding of the requirement.

In addition to the rating of the technical merit of the offeror‘s quotation, the Department evaluates risk within each of the below criteria associated with each offeror‘s proposed approach to performing the requirements stated in the PWS.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Quality and credibility of the general approach to the Performance Work

Statement

2. Qualifications of the project staff

3. Soundness of the management plan and task/time commitments of staff

4. Corporate expertise, capability and oversight

5. Past Performance

In addition to the adjectival ratings, the following elements will be considered when evaluating the technical proposal. When evaluating these elements, the following definitions shall be applied in the rating and supporting narrative.

Strength: An element of the proposal which enhances a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government. A discussion of a strength in the proposal shall be accompanied by the benefit to the Government associated with that strength.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A discussion of a weakness in the proposal shall be accompanied by the risk to the Government associated with that weakness.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A discussion of a significant weakness in the proposal shall be accompanied by the risk to the Government associated with that significant weakness.

Deficiency: A material failure of the proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the likelihood of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. If a deficiency is contained in the proposal, the proposal is determined to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Risk (low, moderate, or high): An element of the proposal that could potentially impact the successful performance of the contract, such as quality and timeliness of products and services.

o High Risk – The proposal contains risks that are considered to be likely to cause significant, serious disruptions in the schedule, increase in cost, and/or degradation in performance or quality;

even with special attention from the contractor and close Government monitoring.

o Moderate Risk – The proposal contains risks that may cause some disruption in the schedule, an increase in cost, and/or degradation in performance or quality but special attention from the contractor and close Government monitoring could possibly overcome the difficulties.

o Low Risk – The proposal contains risks that have little potential for causing disruption in the schedule, an increase in cost, and/or degradation performance or quality; normal effort from the contractor and normal Government monitoring can probably overcome any difficulties.

Technical Evaluation Criteria

1.Quality and credibility of the general approach to the Performance Work Statement

The offeror’s general responsiveness and technical approach toward the nature, magnitude, variety, details and problems of the work to be performed is thorough, detailed, and complete.

The offeror is able to show a clear understanding of the substantive areas of work;

The extent to which the offeror is able to demonstrate its knowledge of postsecondary education survey databases and studies, relevant postsecondary policy issues, and familiarity with education data and literature.

The extent to which the proposal demonstrates sufficient thoroughness of the approach for carrying out the subtasks, including discussion of any foreseen issues or problems, and the means employed to overcome or minimize difficulties.

2.Qualifications of the project staff

The qualification of the project staff will be evaluated to the extent that the proposal demonstrates sufficient relevant experience and education/training of proposed project staff in such areas as:

• Knowledge of Federal contract management;

• Knowledge of NCES Statistical Standards, NCES Style Standards and NCES Web Standards.

• Developing and maintaining web-based data collection systems for large scale surveys

• Experience responding to public inquiries pertaining to postsecondary education within a short period of time. This experience includes, but is not exclusive of: responding to inquiries, using data tools, creating customized data sets and data tables.

• Knowledge of complex survey design, the implications this has for data analysis, and how this applies to OPE postsecondary data.

• Knowledge of OPE postsecondary data, data products, and reports, including Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems, Campus Crime Data Collection Application, Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) Data Collection Application, College Affordability and Transparency Center website (CATC), including 90/10, State Spending Charts, and the Net Price Calculator; the Database of Postsecondary Institutions and Programs system (DAPIP), and the E-Recognition system.

• Knowledge about how OPE data collection systems share data.

• Experience staffing a help desk to respond to questions from respondents about how to submit their data using a web-based data collection, and questions about how to use the data collection system. Experience developing and implementing help desk training, including developing training materials.

• Knowledge of Title IV legislation and regulatory implementation as is applies to the Campus Crime Data Collection and EADA Data Collection.

• Experience writing and updating electronic codebooks and other data related technical documentation.

• Experience writing and updating instructional handbooks.

• Knowledge and experience using statistical software packages (SAS and SPSS, etc.), with particular emphasis on statistical software packages that can provide unbiased standards using data with a complex survey design.

• Knowledge of the Department’s role in the process of recognition of nationally recognized accrediting agencies that the Secretary determines to be reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education and the higher education programs they accredit.

• Knowledge of the process whereby recognition is granted by the Department for State agencies for the approval of public postsecondary vocational education.

• Ability to secure appropriate level security clearances for all appropriate staff.

3.Soundness of the management plan and task/time commitments of staff

• The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a sound and feasible approach to controlling the quality of project work and products.

• The extent to which the proposed project organization demonstrates an efficient use of staff with clearly defined lines of authority and responsibilities, and staff assignments match their expertise.

• The extent to which the offeror demonstrates effective control of tasks and resource allocations that will ensure the timely completion of tasks/deliverables within the proposed budget.

4.Corporate expertise, capability, and oversight

• The extent to which the proposal demonstrates sufficient corporate experience in building and maintaining web-based data collection systems, conducting large scale data collections, developing data documentation, responding to requests for data quickly, writing statistical reports using and building and maintaining websites for government agencies.

• The extent to which the offeror demonstrates sufficient access to literature, facilities and equipment, statistical software, computer capability, and, when appropriate, experts and consultants.

5.Past Performance

• The extent to which the proposal demonstrates sufficient past performance information, which is relevant to the nature, scope and complexity of the work outlined in the PWS. Information received from CPARS, the contractor, and contractor-selected references is favorable, and does not contain any valid negative information.

Cost/Price Evaluation

The Department will evaluate the offerors Price/Business Proposal. Although Price/Business Quote is an evaluation factor of the RFP, it will not be evaluated based upon a predetermined evaluation rating scale.

Rather, the Department will analyze the Price/Business Proposal to ensure the proposed prices are fair and reasonable, as required by the Evaluation Panel Director (EPD)/CO. Offerors that do not propose fair and reasonable pricing may be ineligible for award.

The Price/Business Quote review will be conducted under the guidance of the CS and CO using one or more price analysis techniques and may be assisted by the COR. The Price/Business Proposal must include proposed pricing for the base period of performance (Base Year) of the contract and each option period of performance (Option Year 1 – 4), as required by the RFP.

The Department will evaluate the Price/Business Proposal for award purposes based on the offerors proposed total price (Total Price) for the Task Order. The Department will also review the proposed pricing for the Base Year and each Option Year.

As part of the Price/Business Proposal evaluation, the Department will evaluate its option to extend services under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Department will determine the amount for the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services by dividing the offerors total proposed pricing for Option Year 4 by 2 (FAR 52.217-8 Option).

The Department will calculate the offerors Total Price using the following formula: Base Year + Option Year 1+ Option Year 2+ Option Year 3 + Option Year 4 + FAR 52.217-8 Option = Total Price.

The offeror must provide pricing for the Base Year and all Option Years. The offeror must not submit a price for the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services period (up to six months). The Department may choose to exercise the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period.

As part of the Price/Business Proposal analysis, the Department will also perform:

• An assessment of the proposed mix of labor categories and the tasks proposed to be performed in each period of performance. The labor mix of categories and tasks proposed are to be assessed for consistency between the technical and price.

• An assessment of whether the Total Price is reasonable.

The Department’s evaluation proposed pricing for option periods of performance does not obligate the Department to exercise any option periods of performance.

Offerors that do not propose fair and reasonable pricing may be ineligible for award.

EVALUATION CRITERIA