N0017819R4039_-_Leadership_Academy_BPA_-_Eval_Factors_Attachment_B.pdf

ATTACHMENT B

EVALUATION FACTORS

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. The requirement will be evaluated based on technical capability, past performance, and price.

There is no specific format for the proposal.

Please email all proposals to the Procurement Specialist, Mirenda Robertson, at mirenda.robertson@navy.mil. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Quality of Course Content and Materials

The contractor shall provide discriminators to allow the government to compare contractor proposals:

1. Course outlines identify where/how course content addresses course topics and learning objectives identified for each course in the Statement of Work. A chart, mapping, or similar document is provided to facilitate review.

2. Each course includes the administration and interpretation of a 180 or 360-degree feedback assessment for course participants, relevant to the course objectives stated.

3. Feedback tool selected is reputable and research-based.

4. Approaches and course content for all courses are reputable and research-based.

5. For the four leadership courses, course content clearly builds and expands upon previous courses in the series without having overlapping content. A chart, mapping, or similar document is provided to facilitate review.

6. Course content for all four courses aligns with the DOD Leadership Continuum.

7. Course content incorporates a blend of instructional approaches, such as including group exercises, self-study, and hands-on application of concepts in addition to any traditional lecture-style approaches.

8. Any pre-work or homework to be assigned adds learning value for participants and complements course materials.

9. Course content aligns and does not conflict with any government-established processes or procedures for supervision/management of personnel.

10. An online course evaluation/survey tool is provided for conducting course evaluations.

Technical POCs from each site are able to access the survey tool and generate reports. The tool is user-friendly, both for course participants completing evaluations and for technical POCs generating reports.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Technical Capabilities. The combined technical risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical risk ratings listed below.

TABLE 1 QUALITY OF COURSE CONTENT AND MATERIALS RATING

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Factor 2: Quality of Past Performance

This factor focuses on the quality of corporate experience with this task. Experience relative to this task will be assessed by considering aspects such as the following (these do not constitute separately evaluated subfactors): quality of products and services; timeliness of performance;

business relations; and overall customer satisfaction.

In addition to information sources identified by the offeror, the Government may review Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or DOD Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) ratings and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts. The Government may also review other relevant past performance information contained in local files and other sources, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases.

General trends in a contractor's past performance will also be considered.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Past Performance factor. The quality of past experience rating, as defined in the table below, is the assessment of the offeror's demonstrated recent record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements.

TABLE 2 QUALITY OF PAST EXPERIENCE RATING

Outstanding Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Good Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Marginal Present/past performance effort involved little or some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Unacceptable Present/past performance effort involved none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Factor 3: Relevance of Past Performance

This factor focuses on relevance of corporate experience to this task.

It is desirable that the Contractor have experience providing at least two years of similar courses to customers within the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), as such experience would provide the Contractor with familiarity with the business, line of work, and organizational culture. If the contractor does not possess prior experience providing similar courses to NAVSEA, experience with the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense would be desirable. Experience with NAVSEA would be considered most relevant, and experience with a DON customer would be considered more relevant than experience with DoD.

In addition to information sources identified by the offeror, the Government may review Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or DOD Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) ratings and other existing past performance ratings on relevant contracts. The Government may also review other relevant past performance information contained in local files and other sources, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases.

General trends in a contractor's past performance will also be considered.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Past Performance factor. The past performance relevancy rating, as defined in the table below, is the assessment of the offeror's demonstrated relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements

TABLE 3 RELEVANCE OF PAST EXPERIENCE RATING

Most Relevant Vendor has experience providing similar courses to a customer within Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA).

Highly Relevant Vendor has experience providing similar courses to a customer within DON.

Somewhat Relevant Vendor has experience providing similar courses to a customer within the DoD.

Least Relevant Vendor does not have experience providing similar courses to a customer within the DoD.

Factor 5: Instructor Qualifications

The contractor will provide highly qualified and experienced instructors for facilitating all courses. The following qualifications are desired for instructors:

1. Credentialed by a nationally-recognized credentialing body in classroom facilitation, leadership development, instructor-led training, or other similar, related field.

2. Experience facilitating classroom training.

3. Experience facilitating leadership development courses.

4. A graduate degree in education, adult learning, organizational psychology, leadership, or similar, related field.

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used for the Instructor Qualifications. The combined technical risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical risk ratings listed below.

TABLE 5 INSTRUCTOR QUALIFICATIONS RATING

Outstanding Instructors possess all desired qualifications. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Instructors possess most desired qualifications. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Acceptable Instructors possess many desired qualifications. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Instructors possess few of the desired qualifications. One or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Instructors do not possess desired qualifications. Information sources suggest one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Factor 6: Price The firm fixed price shall include any volume or spot discounts. Since the Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors, you are encouraged to offer your most advantageous pricing in the initial response.

The evaluation factors are listed in descending or equal order of importance. Quality of course content is the most important factor; this factor is slightly more important than factors 2 through 5. Factors 1 through 5 are significantly more important than Price.

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

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.