RFP Attachment III- Evaluation-Basis of Award.pdf

Attachment III

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

1. CONTENT AND FORMAT OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL

Note: Evaluation will initially be completed for Base Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Award(s) (IDIQ) only. After award of Base IDIQ(s), award of the Task Orders will be competed as described in Basis of Award section below. Throughout these instructions, the term, “Offeror, “Firm” and “Contractor” are used interchangeably to mean anyone responding to the solicitation.

Submit one (1) original complete response to this solicitation. The offerors response shall consist of two (2) volumes. The submissions shall be sent electronically to Robyn Moore at Robyn.Moore@exim.gov and Thu Vo at Thu.Vo@exim.gov The offeror’s response shall comprise the following two volumes:

1. Volume I: Technical Submittal;

2. Volume II: Pricing

A cover sheet shall accompany each Volume, clearly marked with the solicitation #, Volume title, date of submittal, acknowledgement of any amendments, Offeror’s name, address, taxpayer ID number, DUNs number, CAGE code, and the Offeror’s POC name, phone number and email address. The cover sheet shall not count against any page limitation.

2. TECHNICAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS (VOLUME 1)

Technical submittal shall be comprised of

1. Technical Approach

2. Management Approach

3. Past Performance

The technical submittal will be evaluated to determine whether the submittal meets the Government’s requirements outlined in the PWS. The technical submittal must reflect a thorough understanding of the requirements; as well as a detailed description of the techniques and procedures for achieving the objectives of the PWS.

Technical Approach:

The Offeror shall make a clear and concise presentation of the technical approaches or solution features to accomplish each area outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The submittal shall reflect a substantive understanding of the scope, complexity and requirements in the PWS. In addition, the offeror shall provide a sufficiently detailed plan to indicate its technical understanding of, and capability for, performing all aspects of the PWS, including responsiveness to all instructions and requirements as specified and described in the RFP. The Offerors may propose additional capabilities within the scope of the PWS for consideration.

The Government may include such additional capabilities in the awarded IDIQ when doing so would be beneficial to the Government. Offerors may propose Teaming arrangements with other law firms possessing expertise required to perform the requirements of the PWS. This would not limit such Offerors on Teaming arrangements in any future Task Orders but would be evaluated on a Task Order by Task Order basis.

Managment Approach:

The offeror shall demonstrate the ability to manage all aspects of the proposed efforts including technical performance, time and delivery constraints, cost, status reporting, and subcontractor(s). The Offeror shall demonstrate that it possesses appropriate and sufficient management oversight for the overall organization that addresses the planning, initiation, implementation, conduct, monitoring and quality control to achieve the objectives outlined in the PWS to include the Offeror’s management, coordination, and oversite of the work to be performed by consultants and/or subcontractor(s).

• Resumes of Key personnel proposed to perform the tasks outlined in the PWS;

• The Contractor shall submit the Quality Control Plan (QCP). The offeror (including subcontractors) must demonstrate appropriate and sufficient procedures, facilities and staff to meet the performance requirement outlined in the task order PWS; and

The offeror (including any applicable subcontractors known to the offeror at the date of its response) must demonstrate appropriate and sufficient procedures, facilities and staff to meet the performance requirement outlined in the PWS.

The contractor shall provide information for the following:

-The performance risks foreseen by the contractor and the contractor’s response to each risk.

-The percentage of initial contractor staff that stayed to completion of a project similar in scope and complexity to the Matters described in the PWS. If personnel left, how long did it take to replace them?

-Experience of offeror in performing requirements of Government agencies under similar contracts, to include examples of challenges faced and solutions achieved by the offeror.

Past Performance:

The Contractor shall provide a description of past performance, which contains three (3) relevant past performance experiences. The past performance experiences shall be broadly similar to the size, scope and complexity of the types of legal issues or restructurings, bankruptcies or other relevant structures or transactions EXIM Bank defines in the PWS. Past Performance consists of the experience of the law firm as an entity, not of the individual attorneys that may be affiliated with or employed by the law firm at the time of submission of its proposal.

Past performance must include the following information:

• Contract number (if applicable)

• Value

• Description

• Technical/contracting points of contact (POC’s), including the designated POC’s name, telephone number, agency and e-mail address

Past Performance shall be organized to show, at a minimum, information addressing the following:

• How well the firm performed its goals

• The responsiveness of the firm

• The effectiveness of the firm at accomplishing staffing goals within budget and on schedule.

The Offeror shall send a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment) to one contact person (POC) from the three (3) references described above for them to complete. After the POC completes the Past Performance Questionnaire, they shall submit it directly to Robyn Moore at Robyn.Moore@exim.gov and Thu Vo at Thu.Vo@exim.gov. The Government is not responsible if one or more references fail to provide a completed Performance Questionnaire.

Alternatively, the Offeror may submit a CPARS assessment for past performance references used in this RFP. A combined total of at least 3 Past Performance Questionnaires and CPARS must be received by EXIM prior to the closing date for this solicitation.

Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any sources, including Government sources within and outside of EXIM Bank and sources outside of the Government.

The evaluation of past performance on completed projects will be a subjective assessment considering all relevant facts and circumstances, including ratings and references from past and/or current customers. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offerors’s ability to meet the technical requirements, deliver quality products, and meet the cost and schedule requirements of this project.

3. PRICE QUOTE INSTRUTIONS (VOLUME II)

Pricing will be evaluated based on the overall total price reasonableness of the Proposal.

mailto:Robyn.Moore@exim.gov mailto:Thu.Vo@exim.gov

BASIS OF AWARD/EVALUATION CRITERIA

Basis of award:

Award shall be made to responsive, responsible offerors whose Proposals, conforming to this RFP, provide the overall best value to the Government, technical evaluation factors, and price considered. The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest technical quality considered necessary to achieve the project’s objectives, with a reasonable price. The Government intends to issue Multiple Awards under this solicitation.

The Technical Approach, Management Approach and Past Performance evaluation criteria, when combined, are more important than price.

Criteria 1 - Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s technical approach and methodology to determine whether it demonstrates a substantive understanding of the scope, complexity and requirements associated with the requirements described in the Performance Work Statements (PWS).

Evaluation will determine whether the Contractor has articulated a clear plan to achieve all requirements outlined in the PWS, including responsiveness to all instructions and requirements as specified and described in the RFP. The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s Proposal to determine whether the Contractor’s approach demonstrates a clear understanding of all objectives and requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statements (PWS).

Criteria 2 – Management Approach:

The Contractor will be evaluated to determine whether the Contractor demonstrates the ability to manage all aspects of the proposed effort including technical performance, time and delivery constraints, cost, status reporting, and (if applicable) subcontractor(s). The Contractor will also be evaluated to determine whether the Contractor demonstrated that they possess appropriate and sufficient management oversight for the Contractor’s overall organization addressing the planning, initiation, implementation, conduct, monitoring and quality control to achieve the objectives outlined in the PWS, to include Contractor’s management, coordination and oversite of the work performed by consultants and/or subcontractor(s).

The Contractor will be evaluated to determine whether the Contractor demonstrates that its resources (including subcontractors, consultants, teaming arrangements) will be available to perform the requirements to meet the objectives outlined in the PWS.

The Contractor will be evaluated to determine whether the management plan provides a clear chain of responsibility, quality control plan, cost control method, contract administration, and adequate, qualified staff resources. The Contractor’s management plan shall demonstrate the Contractor’s ability to achieve all requirements outlined in the Performance Work Statements (PWSs), as well as responding to all instructions and requirements specified and described in the RFP.

The Government will also evaluate the following management plan documents submitted by the Contractor:

Resumes of Key personnel proposed to perform as applicable

The Quality Control Plan (QCP).

Criteria 3 - Past Performance:

The Government will evaluate each past performance references to determine whether it is relevant in terms of size, scope and complexity to the requirement(s) stated in the PWS.

The Government will evaluate and rate relevant past performance references by reviewing the corresponding past performance questionnaire submitted according to the Instructions to Offerors and/or, if applicable, any CPARs past performance assessments. The Government will also consider subjective information such as relevant facts, circumstances and its knowledge of the contractor.

The Government is seeking to determine whether the contractor has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of high quality products and services.

Contractors shall be evaluated to determine whether they adhere to delivery schedules, including those for administrative reporting. Contractors shall be evaluated to determine their experience in achieving reasonable results, deomonstrate cooperative behavior with the client and or other consultants/subcontractors/teaming arrangement partners, as the case may be, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Contractor’s ability to meet technical requirements, deliver quality products, and meet schedule and price requirements of this project and create/foster positive business relationships with the Contractor’s clients.

Exceptional (E) Confidence

Exceptionally Confident. Based on the offeror’s performance record, no doubt exists that the successful offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Little or no Government oversight is expected to be required in achieving the proposed level of performance.

Very Good (G) Confidence

Confidence. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is essentially no doubt that the successful offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Little or no Government oversight is expected to be required in achieving the proposed level of performance.

Satisfactory (S) Confidence

Confidence. Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Little Government oversight is expected to be required in achieving the proposed level of performance.

Marginal (M)

Confidence. Based on the offeror’s performance record, doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Significant Government oversight will be expected in achieving the proposed level of performance.

Unacceptable (U)

No Confidence. Based on the offeror’s performance record, significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. No amount of Government oversight will achieve the proposed level of performance.

Neutral (N) Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Criteria 4 - Price

The Government will evaluate price to determine whether the price offered is consistent with and based upon the data provided in the Contractor’s Proposal. In addition, price must be fair and reasonable as compared to the scope of this requirement.

Options. The Government will evaluate Contractors for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a Contractor is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Task Order Evaluation

The issuance of Task Orders under the resulting IDIQ contracts will be undertaken in accordance with FAR 16.5.

Each Task Order submission will be evaluated in accordance with the following:

For initial Task Order (TO) Assignments for a specific imperiled/at-risk/restructuring/defaulted/ or bankruptcyTransaction or Matter, howsoever named (provided that it falls within the scope of the PWS), each IDIQ awardee will be provided a Request for Quote to submit information to explain “why” that firm should be issued the TO.

Information will be evaluated by an analysis of the Contractor’s response as follows, with the evaluation categories in descending order of importance:

1: Firm with experience on the “front end” (i.e. origination) of the Transaction as Borrower-paid legal advisor

Experience may be satisfied in at least two ways (other methods may be taken into account at EXIM Bank’s discretion):

a. the law firm as an entity performing under previous contracts, engagement letters or similar arrangements;

b. the attorneys and support staff employed by the law firm and available for assignment to the TO Matter. Such personnel may have acquired their Transaction specific experience (i) while employed (or serving as a partner) at a different firm than the firm being considered for the TO or (ii) while employed at EXIM Bank. Teaming or subcontracting arrangements with a different firm are allowable.

2: Firm with experience in providing the legal support services (LSS) to EXIM for the imperiled Transaction.

3: Firm with experience in EXIM’s export credit financing transactions in commercial aircraft (and/or commercial rail) transactions that is most relevant in light of the PWS and the TO.

4: Ability to respond with assigned resources in the timeframe required (could be 24 hours after notice of award of TO).

5: Hourly rates.

6: References/reviews in commercial journals/Bar Association testimonials or other periodicals or publications, or awards of recognition in the aircraft or rail sector.

7: Applicable transportation experience in the relevant legal jurisdiction(s) at issue, which may include transactions worked on by the firm together with local counsel in said jurisdiction or under a Teaming arrangement with local counsel in such jurisdiction.

8: If applicable, any additional evaluation criteria specified in the task order, instructions or other materials sent by the contracting officer to the potential contractor(s).

For TO’s for continued performance on a particular Matter or Transaction already the subject of a TO under the IDIQ (or under a separate contract vehicle with EXIM), the Contracting Officer may issue a follow-on TO to the incumbent after providing notice of the intent to do so to all IDIQ holders. When making the decision to issue follow-on Task Order, the Contracting Officer may rely upon information already in their possession that lead to the award of the previous TO to the incumbent. Each IDIQ holder other than the incumbent on the particular Matter may tender a Task Order submission if the contractor believes it is capable of displacing the incumbent.

The Contracting Officer may specify, both for initial Task Orders and for Task Orders for continued performance on a particular Matter or Transaction already the subject of a TO under the IDIQ, that oral presentations will be used instead of written Task Order submissions.