PRESTO Evaluation Criteria_Updated_07-21-2022.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Criteria

M.1 General Instructions

Proposals shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions contained in Section L of this Request for Proposals (RFP). Each submission will be evaluated against the evaluation factors listed below.

M.2 Basis for Award

The Government intends to award an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract to the

Highest Technically Rated Offerors with Reasonable Price (HTRO-RP) for each scope category.

There may be one or more HTRO-RP for each scope category. Successful Offerors may receive one contract which will delineate which scope categories the successful Offeror is permitted to submit quotes during the life of this ID/IQ. A successful Offeror’s contract may note one scope category, multiple scope categories, or all scope categories.

The Government reserves the right not to make an award for any reason. This could include if, in the opinion of the Government, none of the submissions would provide satisfactory performance at a price that is considered fair and reasonable and/or economically feasible, or if agreement between the

Government and Offeror on the terms and conditions cannot be reached within the timeframe established by the Contracting Officer (CO). Any exceptions or deviations by the Offeror to the terms and conditions stated in this RFP for inclusion in the resulting award may make the proposal unacceptable for award.

M.3 Award Without Discussions

In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(3), the Government reserves the right to award without discussions or exchanges. Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit their best technical solutions and price in response to this RFP.

M.4 Definitions

• Strength: An attribute in the Offeror’s proposal that can be beneficial to the Government or greatly increase the probability of successful contract performance.

• Weakness: A flaw or omission in the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of degraded or unsuccessful contract performance.

• Significant Weakness: A flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Deficiency: A material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses or significant weaknesses in an Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

• Recency: For the purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as work completed or ongoing during the past seven (7) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

• Relevancy: Relevancy means the degree to which referenced work is similar in size, scope, and complexity to the effort referenced in the SOW.

M.5 Phased Evaluation Process

Evaluation will consist of two parts. Offerors should note that this phased approach is not the advisory multi-step process referenced by FAR 15.202.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.306 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.202

Phase I will assess Factor 1 in self-selected content areas subject to the instructions listed in Section

L. Phase I will not consider price, and the Government will advise Offerors of their likelihood of success following Phase I evaluations. Phase I evaluations will comply with FAR Part 15’s mandate to identify strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks as applicable.

Following Phase I evaluations, the CO will advise Offerors whether to proceed to Phase II of the competition. The decision to proceed to Phase II is entirely voluntary. Offerors will not receive a pre-award or post-award debriefing following Phase I, and the voluntary decision not to proceed to Phase

II forecloses any opportunity for award, pre- or post-award debriefing following announcement of award.

The CO will not establish as competitive range following Phase I as defined by FAR 15.306(c), however, if discussions with Offerors are required following Phase II evaluations, the CO may establish a competitive range if they so choose to engage in discussions with Offerors comprising the competitive range (if necessary).

Phase II will assess Factors 2-3. Phase II evaluations will comply with FAR Part 15’s mandate to identify strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks as applicable. Phase II will also consider price in making the ID/IQ award decision.

All Offerors are advised that the Government may establish a competitive range following Phase II if the CO determines that negotiations are warranted. The competitive range may comprise of one or more scope categories. This means that the CO may establish a competitive range for a single scope category and award the remaining scope categories without establishing a competitive range and engaging in discussions.

As indicated elsewhere in this RFP, the CO reserves the right to issue one or more awards without engaging in discussions if appropriate. If the Government determines the number of proposals that would otherwise be included in any competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.6 Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposal submissions against the following evaluation factors:

M.6.1 Phase I – Volume I

In Phase I-Volume I, the Offeror must provide sufficient information for the Government to evaluate its level of confidence that the demonstrated prior experience in the specified scope category is recent, relevant, represents the highest quality of work, and demonstrates successful outcomes for that particular scope category.

Factor 1 – Demonstrated Prior Experience

• The scope and extent to which the Offeror’s demonstrated prior experience in the specified category, subcategory, and task (as applicable) is recent, relevant, represents the highest quality of work, and demonstrates successful outcomes for the referenced work.

NOTE: Factor 1 will be the basis for an Advisory Notice to Offerors. Regardless of the recommendation in the Advisory Notice, any Offeror may choose to proceed to Phase II. Failure to participate in Phase I of the procurement precludes further consideration of an Offeror.

M.6.2 Phase II – Volume II

In Phase II-Volume II, the Offeror must provide sufficient response to address Factors 2: Technical

Capability & Personnel Qualifications and 3: Demonstrated Problem Solving, Management, and

Small Business Engagement for each scope category that they have self-selected.

Factor 2 – Technical Capability & Personnel Qualifications

• The scope and extent to which the Offeror provides a targeted, specific, and high-quality technical approach for its identified category, subcategory, or task(s).

• The scope and extent to which the Offeror submits personnel whose work is targeted to the scope category presented, and the scope and extent to which those proposed personnel are qualified and appropriate for the proposed work.

• Appendix Statement of Work - Examples for PRESTO includes potential topic areas that may inform how an Offeror approaches Factor 2. A strong Offeror may thoughtfully address one or more of the needs referenced in Appendix Statement of Work – Examples for

PRESTO or similarly provide specific, granular demonstrations of technical capability for their specified subcategory or task.

Factor 3 – Demonstrated Problem Solving, Management, and Small Business Engagement

• The scope and extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an ability to identify and solve potential challenges. The scope and extent to which the offeror demonstrates ability to think critically to overcome problems associated with the task(s) in the category or categories.

• The scope and extent to which the Offeror demonstrates capability to manage risk, ensure quality, maintain costs within budget (when applicable), and staff the project appropriately.

• For Other than Small Businesses Only: The scope and extent to which the Offeror successfully demonstrates an ability to recruit and engage small businesses for substantive work related to the subcategory or task.

NOTE: The CO will not consider Past Performance information in establishing the ID/IQ as permitted by FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii).

M.7 Rating Scale

ED will use the rating scale defined in Table 1 to assign ratings to each individual evaluation factor.

ED will not assign an overall confidence rating to each offeror.

Table 1 – Confidence Ratings

Confidence Rating Definition

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract. The approach presents a very low risk to the

Government.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract. The approach presents some risks to the

Government.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract. The approach presents a high risk to the Government.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/15.304

M.7.1 Relative Order of Importance

Factor 1 is the most important evaluation factor. Factors 2 and 3 follow in importance and are of equal weight relative to one another. Sub-bullets are of equal weight.

M.7.2 Content for Evaluation & Award Consideration

The SOW consists of five categories. Each category has multiple subcategories. Some subcategories have separate tasks.

Example:

Category: 1. Education Sciences Support Activities

Subcategory: 1.1 General Education Sciences Support

Task: 1.1.1 Sampling

Example:

Category: 4. Recruitment

Subcategory: 4.3 Centralized Contact List

Task: Not Applicable.

Offerors may submit responses to any of the five scope categories in this ID/IQ – there is no limitation on the number of scope categories that an Offeror may propose to, however, Offerors are required to address at a minimum the following number of subcategories, per scope category response submission to be considered eligible for evaluation by the Government:

Table 2 – Subcategory Response Requirements

Scope Category Response Requirements

Category 1 Offerors must address a minimum of two subcategories and a maximum of three subcategories. Within each category, offerors may address any of the tasks within each subcategory as applicable. Offerors may write to as few as one or as many as all tasks.

Category 2 Offerors must address a minimum of two subcategories and a maximum of four subcategories. Within each category, Offerors may address any of the tasks within each subcategory as applicable. Offerors may write to as few as one or as many as all tasks.

Category 3 Offerors must address a minimum of one subcategory and a maximum of two subcategories. Within each category, Offerors may address any of the tasks within each subcategory as applicable. Offerors may write to as few as one or as many as all tasks.

Category 4 Offerors must address a minimum of one subcategory and a maximum of four subcategories. Within each category, Offerors may address any of the tasks within each subcategory as applicable. Offerors may write to as few as one or as many as all tasks.

Category 5 Offerors must address all subcategories. Within each category, offerors may address any of the tasks within each subcategory as applicable. Offerors may write to as few as one or as many as all tasks.

Selection for the ID/IQ will be made at the category level. This means that an Offeror who responds to more than one category may be very highly rated in one category and low-rated in another category. The Offeror may receive an award for the highly rated scope area but not for the low-rated scope area. Please refer to the ordering procedures for additional information on how ED will apply fair opportunity principles to the ID/IQ for task orders once the ID/IQ is established.

M.8 Consideration of Price (LCAT Rate Card)

For the purposes of this solicitation, price is not rated and is not ranked in the order of evaluation criteria. Rather, the CO/SSA will evaluate price for fairness and reasonableness. Price in this context means the labor rates proposed. This evaluation will not result in a total evaluated price as there is no total price to evaluate at the IDIQ level. Fair and reasonable labor rates proposed will be used to establish Maximum Rates on awarded IDIQ contracts if awarded and will apply, for the life of the

IDIQ, to all task order types issued (e.g. Firm-Fixed Price, Time and Material, Labor Hour, Cost

Reimbursement, etc.).

The Government may include in this evaluation a comparison to the proposed rates received from

Offerors in the same scope category, a comparison to generic rates of the same description using the

GSA’s Pricing Tool, or any other means that the CO deems appropriate to establish reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 The prices being evaluated include the base period and all option periods. The Government will also evaluate compliance with the applicable wage determinations.

https://buy.gsa.gov/pricing/qr/mas