NCS_section_M 7-7-2022.pdf

SECTION M –

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. Basis for Award

The Government intends to award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. Using the best-value, tradeoff process, the Government will evaluate each proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria for the following criteria:

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Written Proposal - (Phase I, Criteria 1-4) Criteria 1 – Noncitizen Communication Service rate sheet Criteria 2 – Service Level Agreement chart Criteria 3 - Contract transition milestone Schedule Criteria 4 – Plan for developing, testing, operating and maintaining the pro bono network

Oral Presentation – Portal Demonstration: Demonstration of key functions (Volume I, Phase II )

Business & Pricing – (Volume II, Phase II) Offeror Cover/Transmittal Letter Pricing (SF33) Proposal Assumptions, Exceptions and Dependencies

Phase I Evaluation Criteria, when combined, are equal to Phase II evaluation criteria. Within Phase I, Criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4 are of equal importance. All non-price evaluation criteria, when combined, are significantly more important than Phase II, Volume II – Price. As the non-price merits of competing Quoter’s proposals approach equal, Phase I Criteria 3 will become more important in the best value trade-off decision. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced proposal.

Evaluations will be based solely on the materials included in the proposal and oral presentation.

Therefore, the Quoter’s initial quote should contain the Quoter’s best terms. After receipt of proposals, the Government will conduct an evaluation. However, during the evaluation process, the Government may, solely at its discretion, communicate with Quoters regarding proposal elements. At any time prior to selection, including upon receipt of proposal, the Government may exclude a proposal from further consideration for any material failure to follow instructions, including the omission of required information, or when the Quoter is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated quoters being considered for award.

M.2. Evaluation Criteria

Both the down select (Phase I) and the Phase II will be performed using confidence ratings (Table 1).

2.1 Comparative Evaluation

Following receipt of responses (including oral presentations), the Government may perform a comparative analysis (comparing quoter responses to one another) to select the offeror that is best suited to fulfill the requirements, based on the offerors’ responses to the factors outlined in this RFP and their relative importance.

Table 1 – Criteria 1-4 Confidence Ratings

High Confidence

The Government has high confidence that the Quoter 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 Quoter 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 Quoter understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Upon completion of Phase I and II evaluations, the Government may perform a comparative evaluation of the quotations (comparing quoter responses to one another) to select the quotation that is best suited to fulfill the requirements, based on the quoters’ responses to the criteria outlined in this RFP and their relative importance.

The Government anticipates selecting the best-suited offeror from initial responses, without engaging in exchanges with quoters. Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit their best technical solutions and price in response to this RFP.

Once the Government determines the offeror that is the best-suited (i.e., the apparent successful quoter), the Government reserves the right to communicate with only that offeror to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize a task order with that offeror. These issues may include technical and price. If the parties cannot successfully address any remaining issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to communicate with the next best-suited quoter based on the original analysis and address any remaining issues. Once the Government has begun communications with the next best-suited quoter, no further communications with the previous quoter will be entertained until after the task order has been awarded. This process shall continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a contract is awarded.

During Phase I, ICE will evaluate the overall written proposal of all Offerors under Criteria 1-4. These criteria will be evaluated based on merit using confidence ratings. ICE will invite up to three (3) of the most highly qualified Offerors to participate in Phase II using advisory down select procedures.

Evaluation Process. ICE will use the trade-off methodology to determine best value through a 2-phased approach for this procurement. ICE will use the following evaluation factors:

Phase I, Criteria 1 –Noncitizen Communication Service Rates The purpose of NCS rates evaluation is to assess the reasonableness, accuracy, and completeness.

Phase I, Criteria 2: Service Level Agreement Chart The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to effectively perform this requirement through a completion of the SLA chart. The Government will assess the following:

a. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the requirements

b. The degree to which the Offeror provides confidence that it will successfully perform the requirements in the PWS.

Phase I, Criteria 3: Contract Transition Plan/Milestone Schedule

a. The Government will evaluate the soundness and quality of Offeror’s Transition Plan, including: The quality, thoroughness, and realism of the Offeror’s Transition Plan for phasing-in from the current contract.

Phase I, Criteria 4: Plan for Developing, Testing, Operating, and Maintaining the Pro Bono Network

a. The Government will determine its confidence in the Offeror’s ability to effectively perform this requirement.

Volume I, Phase II - Oral Presentation

The oral presentation shall describe the offeror’s understanding of the NCS program. The oral presentation shall address the proposed solution, plans and resources necessary to satisfy all PWS requirements.

Oral presentations will be assigned a confidence rating in accordance with Table 1. Oral presentations will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s understanding of the NCS program in oral presentation portion 2, as well as the interactive dialogue in oral presentation portion 4. The Offeror’s team dynamics during the oral presentation may also be evaluated.

Volume II, Phase II – Offeror Cover/Transmittal Letter

Tab A: Cover Letter

a. RFQ Number & Title.

b. Name and address of vendor.

c. Name, telephone number & e-mail address of main point-of-contact.

d. Name of your administrative contracting officer, if applicable.

e. Date of submission.

f. Name, title, and signature of authorized representative.

g. Company Unique Identifier Number and CAGE Code.

h. The validity period of the Quote – Contractors should indicate in writing that their Quotes are valid for 180 calendar days from the date of submission.

M.2.1 Volume II, Phase II – Pricing (SF33)

Proposed pricing data may be analyzed to determine the price reasonableness and associated risks of doing business with an Offeror based upon the Offeror’s proposed approach for the proposed price. A price analysis will be performed to assess whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable. This criteria will not be adjectively rated.

M.2.2 Volume II, Phase II – Proposal Assumptions Exceptions and Dependencies

(End of Section M)