Attachment_11_-_Technical_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

SECTION M - TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The rating will be based on a combined evaluation of the technical proposal compromised of two sections, the IDIQ contract and Task Order 1. Therefore, the two sections will not be rated individually.

1. GENERAL

The selection of an Offeror for contract award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against three factors. The evaluation factors in order of importance are technical, cost and past performance. The technical factors and corresponding subfactors are listed in order of importance. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. The Government intends to make an award to the offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

The Government will use an adjectival rating scale on all proposals. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Offerors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the Statement of Work. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of the requirements of the Statement of Work. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed factors listed below.

Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, past performance and cost/price are also important to the overall contract award decision. As proposals become more equal in terms of technical merit and past performance, the cost or price becomes more important.

2. COST/PRICE EVALUATION

Offeror(s) cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. 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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Cost Realism: The specific elements of each offeror(s) proposed costs are realistic when the proposed cost elements are evaluated and found to: 1) be realistic for the work to be performed; 2) reflect a clear understanding of the requirements;

and 3) be consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror(s) technical proposal.

Cost Realism will be evaluated only on the offeror(s) inputs which the Government will use to determine the most probable cost to perform the contract in a manner consistent with the offeror's proposal. Cost realism analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). The result of the cost realism analysis will be considered in the making the best value tradeoff decision.

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation factors are used by the technical evaluation committee when reviewing the technical proposals. Adjectival ratings will be assigned for each factor. The factors below are listed in order of relative importance.

1. Corporate Experience

2. Project Management Plan

3. Key Personnel and Other Personnel Qualifications

4. Transition

Technical Factor 1: Corporate Experience

The Offeror shall demonstrate in the proposal appropriateness and adequacy of the background and corporate experience performing the same or similar services required in the SOW. This experience can be from federal, state or commercial entities. The government prefers experience and expertise in providing planning, meeting and conference logistical support for federal organizations that support biomedical research.

Technical Factor 2: Project Management Plan

The Offeror shall provide evidence in the proposal of the appropriateness and adequacy of the Project Management Plan in terms of staffing, organizational structure and lines of authority, management of subcontracts/consultants, tracking of project activities, monitoring progress and timelines, and communication with stakeholders. The Offeror shall demonstrate a corporate administrative and organizational framework to achieve contract objectives and maintain quality control over the operation of the project.

Technical Factor 3: Key Personnel and Other Personnel Qualifications

The Offeror shall demonstrate the appropriateness and adequacy of the education, training, experience, qualifications and effort for proposed key personnel to perform the requirements of the SOW. Staff shall be proficient in information technology and operate in a confidential and service-oriented manner. The Government anticipates the following labor categories to meet the requirements of the SOW:

• Project Manager: Must demonstrate successful experience in directing and managing similar logistical support projects. The Government prefers a minimum of five years’ experience and knowledge of complex logistical activities involving extensive communication with various entities including federal staff, domestic and international researchers, and senior representatives from industry, academia, and the general public.

• Conference/Meeting Planner: Must demonstrate extensive successful experience in planning and managing major public meetings and small committee meetings that include domestic and international federal and non-federal participants. The Government prefers a minimum of three years’ experience in direct conference/meeting planning.

• Other Support Staff

Technical Factor 4: Transition

The Offeror shall demonstrate in the proposal the appropriateness and adequacy of a transition plan outlining the transfer of operations to the Government or a Successor.

4. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

It is anticipated that any task order(s) awarded under the IDIQ contract awarded from this solicitation will contain option provision(s) and periods(s). In accordance with FAR clause 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options, (July 1990) the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price of the basic requirement, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).