Evaluation Factors All others.doc

ATTACHMENT 1

Basis for Award and Evaluation Factors

A.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Acquisition Management Division, anticipates making award to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is evaluated as being the most advantageous to OJP, ie. Best value. For this solicitation, technical merit is more important than cost or price. The award will not be automatically determined by numerical calculation or formula relationship between cost or price and technical merit. As technical merit of the offerors' proposals becomes more equal, the evaluated cost or price may become the determining factor. The Contracting Officer shall determine what trade-off between technical merit and cost or price promises the greatest value to OJP. For evaluation purposes, in terms of importance, the following technical criteria shall be considered approximately equal: past performance, corporate experience, technical understanding, quality control, proposed personnel, management approach.

A.2 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL RATINGS

The Government will evaluate all technical factors as exceptional, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable.

“Tradeoff” Evaluation Rating Standards

Exceptional

An exceptional proposal contains significant strengths and no weaknesses. The proposal exceeds the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The proposal offers value-added methodologies for improving service that benefits the Government. The evaluator has no doubt that the offeror can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW if the technical approach proposed is followed. The offeror acknowledges risks and develops an approach that proactively identifies and mitigates risks, and looks to reduce or eliminate future risks.

Acceptable

An acceptable proposal contains strengths that outweigh any existing weaknesses. The offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the offeror can successfully achieve the requirements in the SOW if the technical approach proposed is followed.

Marginal

The proposal meets the bare minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW, and at the same time has significant weaknesses. The evaluator is not confident that the offeror can successfully complete the required tasking without significant Government oversight or participation. The proposal either fails to address risks or the proposed risk mitigation approach is not deemed to be sufficient to manage the risk.

Unacceptable

An unacceptable proposal that contains one or more significant weaknesses and deficiencies. Proposal fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the SOW. The evaluator is confident that the offeror will be unable to successfully complete the required tasking. The proposal does not adequately acknowledge or address risk, mitigate risk, or may actually introduce risk.

A.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Past Performance. Offerors are required to submit past performance information for relevant work that has been performed for the Federal government within the PAST three (3) years and which is similar to this effort in nature/scope, complexity, and size. The information shall be provided in tabular format and may be in 10-point type size. The table is limited to 3 pages. Include this information for each contract listed: Project Name, Contract Number, Period of Performance, Total Project Value, Contact Name, Contact Phone Number, Brief Project Description of work performed, and identification of whether the work was performed as Prime or Subcontractor. Also include for each contract a brief description of any problems and/or situations that impacted performance and the corrective actions taken to avoid recurrences. If applicable, the table may contain contracts held by the proposed subcontractor that are similar to this effort in nature/scope, complexity, and size.

Past Performance Questionnaires shall reflect experience providing training and technical assistance services involving Federal Agencies, which were executed within the past three (3) years. The questionnaire is located as Attachment 2. Completed and signed questionnaires shall be submitted with the Technical Proposal in a separate envelope labeled "Attachment 2: Past Performance Questionnaires." Questionnaires do not count in the page count for the Past Performance section of the technical proposal.

Offerors are advised that the Government may use all data provided by the offeror in this proposal and data obtained from other sources, including but not limited to other DOJ and OJP contracts that the offeror may not have included in their proposal, in the development of performance confidence assessments. Past Performance information on contracts not listed by the offeror, or that of planned subcontractors, may also be evaluated. The Government may contact references provided by the offeror, as well as any other source it identifies, and information received may be used in the evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current, accurate and complete Past Performance information rests with the offeror.

Past Performance narrative shall not exceed three (3) pages. The narrative consists of 1 page for the table and 2 pages for the detailed information for the detailed descriptions of the contracts for which questionnaires are being provided.

2. Corporate Experience. The offeror shall include a general statement detailing the organization's history. Provide a chart that depicts the organization's structure and also indicates where the proposed team fits within the organizational structure. This general statement must not exceed one (1) typed page of the total of three (3) pages allotted to Corporate Experience.

The offeror must demonstrate a minimum of three (3) years of experience providing similar support, as identified in Attachment C, Section 3.0 of the Statement of Work (SOW). If corporate experience is unavailable, an offeror may substitute relevant experience regarding predecessor companies, proposed key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors who will perform major critical aspects of the requirement. If this substitution is applied, the offeror must clearly indicate how this experience relates or compares to the experience required.

The narrative must demonstrate relevant technical ability and experience directly related to OJP's or other Federal agencies'. The narrative must also describe two of the largest dollar projects similar in nature and scope that involved these activities that were completed on time at, or under, budget by the offeror's firm in the last three years. The narrative may include awards received for projects, and, if applicable, must include proposed key personnel who worked on these projects. (Do not submit resumes - names and titles only.)

3. Proposed Staffing. A rating for this factor will be based on the degree to which the offeror meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work and that has demonstrated experience in the task areas pertinent to each labor category described in Section 4.0 of Attachment C, SOW. The narrative for this section must not exceed one (1) typed page. The labor mix proposed by the contractor must contain the proper mix of qualified staff to perform the work described in Section 3.0 of Attachment C, SOW.

The offeror shall submit resumes of all proposed staff to be assigned work resulting from this solicitation. Years of experience must be clearly demonstrated, and technical competence in each task area appropriate to the labor category addressed in the solicitation must also be clearly demonstrated. Resumes must be sufficiently detailed to permit an assessment of the capability of proposed staff to perform the work described in Section 3.0 of Attachment C, SOW. Determinant qualifications for all proposed personnel will include credible, recent experience that is appropriate and applicable to the support and services that these personnel will provide. Each resume must indicate the labor category for which the individual is being proposed. Also, the resume must indicate whether the position is a key position. Key positions are identified in the statement of work.

Determinant qualifications for key personnel, professional staff and consultants will include credible, recent experience; leadership and knowledge in the key subject areas as identified in Statement of Work. All proposed subcontractors and consultants must submit a Letter of Commitment. For each consultant whose name is submitted as well as any staff who is not currently employed by the offeror, a letter of commitment to work for the offeror must be included in the Technical Proposal to be considered responsive. No credit will be given under this criterion for subcontractors, consultants, or proposed but-not-yet-hired staff for which no letter of commitment is provided.

4. Technical Understanding. The offeror shall submit a narrative demonstrating the offeror's technical understanding and approach to meeting the requirements of the SOW and accomplishing the tasks described. The narrative shall demonstrate comprehensive and feasible methods and plans to accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 3.0 of Attachment C, SOW as well as the application of the offeror's understanding in accomplishing these tasks. Ratings for this factor will be based on a judgment of the degree to which the offeror demonstrates the ability to perform the tasks. The degree to which the proposed approach addresses difficulties present in the current state of the field and the related project impacts will also be considered. The narrative is limited to ten (8) pages.

5. Quality Control. The offeror shall provide a narrative that identifies internal review procedures to ensure that high quality standards are sustained for this effort. The narrative shall contain a company profile showing all qualified individuals who will directly supervise or review projects to ensure quality control, which includes any quality control measures applied to subcontractors and performed by subcontractors.

The narrative shall describe handling potential problem areas and solutions, and customer relations and procedures for meeting urgent requirements. The offeror shall address the approach for application of innovative quality leadership, productivity enhancement, and cost reduction methods and techniques. The narrative shall also describe how the offeror will execute multiple activities simultaneously.

The narrative is limited to two (2) pages.

6. Management Approach. The offeror shall include in the narrative a description of the approach to be applied to the management of this effort. The proposed management approach shall delineate staff and functional relations and illustrate communication and reporting requirements with OJP/CCDO. The offeror should pay attention to the issues of efficiency and effectiveness of its management approach in dealing with shifting priorities as well as how the offeror will work as a member of a team with other project-related organizations. The management plan should show how the offeror can respond quickly to unanticipated tasks, changes, or problems and what types of assistance the offeror can offer that are tailored for various situations. If applicable, the offeror should describe the approach to securing and selecting competent consultant and subcontractor services.

The offeror should demonstrate recent successful experience in overseeing and providing full administrative support for similar work and comparable technical complexity.

The narrative is limited to two (2) typed pages.

A.4 KEY PERSONNEL AND LEVEL OF SUPPORT

The personnel specified in the technical proposal as key personnel are considered to be essential to the work being performed. The designations of this contract may be amended from time to time during the course of the contract to either add or delete personnel, as appropriate. Prior to diverting any of the specified individuals to other programs, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer reasonably in advance and shall submit justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the program. No diversion shall be made by the Contractor without the written consent of the Contracting Officer required by this clause.

A.5

EXCLUSION OF LATE QUOTATION

Offerors are advised of the exclusion of late quotations provision. Quotations must be received by 3:00 p.m. EST, September 03, 2008 to be considered responsive. Any quotations received after this time will not be considered.

A.6

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Pursuant to the Organizational Conflict of Interest “OCI” clause, offerors shall provide a statement in its proposal which describes in a concise manner all past, present or planned organizational, financial, contractual or other interest(s) with an organization regulated by OJP, or with an organization whose interest may be substantially affected by OJP activities, and which is related to the work under this solicitation. The interest(s) described shall include those of the Contractor, its affiliates, proposed consultants, proposed subcontractors and key personnel of any of the above.

OJP procurements are evaluated for organizational conflicts of interest pursuant to FAR 9.5. Any decision to exclude a vendor for this award will be made on a case by case basis and in accordance with FAR 9.5. Vendors must adhere to the requirements of the OJP OCI clause.

A.7

COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFFERORS

Negotiations may be conducted with those offerors whose responsive and technically acceptable proposals, combined with their price proposals, place them in the competitive range. HOWEVER, OFFERORS ARE CAUTIONED TO SUBMIT THEIR PRICING PROPOSALS ON THE MOST FAVORABLE BASIS SINCE THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE AN AWARD ON INITIAL PROPOSALS. Discussions with the offerors are not required but the Government reserves the right to seek additional clarifying information on quotes without triggering the discussion rules.

A.8 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance will include a 12-month base period with two 12-month option periods. Options may be exercised based on annual performance review and funding availability.

A.9 CONTRACTING ADMINISTRATION DATA

Contracting Officer/Administrator:

To Be Determined First Class Mailing:

OJP/AMD

Office of Justice Programs

810 7th Street, N.W., Room 3628

Washington, D.C. 20531

Courier or Hand Delivery:

OJP/AMD

Office of Justice Programs

810 7th Street, N.W., Room 3628

Washington, D.C. 20531

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative:

Geroma Void

Task Monitors:

To be assigned

A.10

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

(52.217-5 Evaluation of options – July 1990)

As prescribed in 17.208(c), insert a provision substantially the same as the following:

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).