Basis_for_Award_&_Evaluation_Criteria_Evaluation.pdf

NIEHS2016 062

NIEHS21900002

FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 BASIS FOR AWARD - EVALUATION

(a) Basis for Award. The selection of a source for award will be conducted utilizing Simplified Acquisition Procedures as delineated in FAR Part 13. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to award with discussions. Quoter is encouraged to present their best quote and prices in their initial quote submission. The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include Factor I, Technical Capability (which encompasses five (5) sub factors), Factor II, Past Performance, and Factor III, Price. Although the technical capability and past performance factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, price is also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government will utilize a tradeoff approach and reserves the right to make award to the Quoter whose submission provides the best overall value to the Government. The Government intends to make one (1) award to the Quoter whose submission provides the best overall value to the Government.

Quoters are advised that award(s) will be made to that Quoter whose submission provides the combination of features with the best or greatest overall value to the Government. The Government is more concerned with obtaining performance capability superiority rather than lowest overall cost. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve only slightly superior performance. Overall cost to the Government may become the ultimate factor for award of a contract as submissions become more equal based on other factors. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the RFQ. The merits of each submission will be evaluated carefully. Each submission must document the feasibility of successful implementation of requirements of the RFQ. Quoters must submit information sufficient to evaluate their submissions based on the detailed criteria below.

1. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: The Government will evaluate the technical submission to ensure it is acceptable or higher. Each submission will be rated utilizing the ratings defined below (price excluded). Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the Quoter’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each sub factor. Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award.

(a) Sub factor 1 – Technical Approach: The Quoter’s submission will be evaluated to ensure it demonstrates:

• Solutions that are clear and are considered to reflect low risk and demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the requirements;

• A concise and clear approach to accomplish the Government’s requirement

• Solutions that are considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements

• A comprehensive approach for accomplishing the services that will result in the greatest efficiencies with maximum service to the Government.

• A sound understanding of the requirement from a technical perspective

• Samples of work products demonstrate a clear understanding and familiarity with the work needed to successfully execute the requirements of the PWS.

• A feasible and effective 15-Day Transition Plan that will ensure minimal to no interruptions in multimedia services on campus.

(b) Sub factor 2 – Management Approach: The Quoter’s submission will be evaluated to ensure it demonstrates:

• A comprehensive organizational structure that clearly demonstrates how the requirement will be managed to successfully execute the contract requirements;

• An efficient and effective approach for managing and controlling team members in multiple functional areas and various travel locations, to include subcontractors that demonstrate a low risk to the Government in executing the contract requirements.

• Delegated authority to the Project Manager and subordinate managers and supervisors within the proposed organization is clear and demonstrated empowerment within the company that will result in effective management of the work to be performed.

• Provisions have been incorporated into the Quoter’s organization that demonstrate effective communication and problem resolution for efficient interaction and liaison between Contractor and the Government personnel

• An effective approach to identify, recruit, and retain qualified personnel

(c) Sub factor 3 – Staffing Plan & Technical Experience: The Quoter’s submission will be evaluated to ensure it demonstrates:

• An effective, clear, efficient, feasible, and a detailed schedule for completion of the work and delivery of items specified in the PWS. The Quoter’s best alternative schedule, involves no overtime, extra shift or other premium.

• Resume(s) of key personnel demonstrates relevant experience, education levels, years of experience, knowledge and skills, and certifications and qualifications necessary to successfully execute the requirements of the contract.

A sound approach that demonstrates the suitable labor categories, staffing mix, and man-hours needed to successfully execute the contract based on qualifications, education levels, knowledge and expertise, and certifications of proposed labor categories;

• Experience that demonstrates a clear understanding and familiarity with the work needed to successfully execute the requirements of the PWS

• Properly executed binding commitment(s) (partnerships, joint ventures, prime contractor/ subcontractor(s))/Signed letters of commitment for key personnel and contractor personnel show availability to begin upon the effective date of the contract.

• An acceptable teaming arrangement which included the work/work area allocated to each team member to demonstrate they possess the ability to successfully execute the approach proposed;

(d) Sub factor 2 – Quality Control Plan: The Quoter’s submission will be evaluated to ensure it demonstrates:

• Effective and efficient control system, processes, functions, and contingencies for program compliance;

• Effective and efficient methodologies for identifying deficiencies in the quality of service performed before the level of service became unacceptable

• Feasibility of implementing all quality control functions

• Effective and efficient internal process for documenting, maintaining records and reporting quality related problems for performance improvement.

(e) Sub factor 5 – Facilities, Equipment, and Supplies: The Quoter’s submission will be evaluated to ensure it demonstrates:

• Solutions which are compatible with technologies and processes described in the PWS;

• Ability to provide all contractor provided equipment that is listed in the PWS

• Systems and databases to be used in satisfying the requirement of PWS are compatible with technologies and processes described in section 4.15., 4.15.1, 4.15.2, and 4.15.3 of the PWS.

• Possesses unique equipment which will improve efficiencies that will be advantageous to the Government.

• Verifiable documentation of access to local facilities within 20 miles of the NIEHS main site that will be used in the performance of this contract.

• Confirmation that Quoter has an established locate office within a 20 mile radius.

The Government will evaluate the Technical submission using the following adjectival rating:

Rating Definition

Exceptional

Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies. The technical submission possesses numerous (5 or more) significant strengths (that are not offset by flaws)

Good

Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist. The technical submission possesses one or more significant strengths (that are not offset by flaws)

Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Marginal

Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; significant weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist.

Unacceptable Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; submission needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

NOTE: A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each sub factor. Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award. The Government will not make an award to any Quoter with an unacceptable rating or a deficiency in ANY factor or sub factor.

Definitions:

• Significant Strength: An aspect of the quotation that greatly exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

• Strength: An aspect of the quotation that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

• Weakness: An aspect of the quotation which is likely to increase the probability of unsuccessful contract performance

• Significant Weakness: An aspect of the quotation that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Deficiency: An omission of or a material failure in the quotation to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

2. FACTOR II - PAST PERFORMANCE: The Past Performance Factor evaluation will assess the relevance and breadth of the

Quoter’s experience and the quality of the Quoter’s past performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the

Quoter has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Quoter consistently delivers quality services in a timely and cost effective manner. In evaluating past performance, HHS/NIH will only take into consideration the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Quoter 's customers. However, the HHS/NIH reserves the right to use other relevant past performance information it obtains through other sources including other agency databases and information contained in trade literature.

• Relevance of Experience: The Quoter’s experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirement on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type, and period of performance. Only recent experience will be evaluated. Evaluations may include interviews with previous clients of the prime contractor and subcontractors and may include interviews with previous clients of proposed personnel. The Quoter’s experience with and knowledge of issues and problems of large organizations will be evaluated. If some of the Quoter’s experience is relevant and the rest is not, only the relevant experience will be evaluated for purposes of past performance. If no experience is relevant or the experience that is relevant cannot be evaluated due to a reference’s failure to respond, a rating of neutral will be assigned for past performance as defined in the next table.

• Past Performance Assessments: The Quoter’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of information contained in the Quoter’s submission and the information that the Government obtains through other means. The past performance evaluation will assess the Quoter’s record of providing high quality services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures maximum accuracy, throughput, cost effectiveness and overall client satisfaction.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Definition

Neutral No past performance available for evaluation. Quoter has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Submission receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding

Based on the Quoter’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experiences indicate that the Quoter is capable of exceeding the requirements of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Good

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experience indicate the Quoter will meet or exceed the requirements of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Acceptable

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experience indicate the Quoter may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Unsatisfactory

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the task order

3. FACTOR III - PRICE: Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate the price for each line item, option year, total price and fixed ODC unit prices to determine if the Quoters prices are fair and reasonable utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR Part 13. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the

Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in

FAR 13.106.

(b) Options. As part of the price fair and reasonable determination, the Government will evaluate its option to extend the term of the contract (see FAR Clause 52.217-9) by using six (6) months of the last years option period. The Quoter shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of the performance period, utilizing the rates of that performance period.

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Quoter within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)