Amendment_2_Attachment__5_Technical_Evaluation_CriteriaFinal.pdf

RFQ-DC-15-00190 (eBuy RFQ 1063096) Amendment 2

ATTACHMENT 5: TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Background and Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a contractor to provide organization, management, maintenance and operation of the Environmental Response

Training Program (ERTP). The contractor shall do this by developing and conducting classroom training courses; functional, table top and full scale exercises; on-line training and webinars; and supporting workshops, seminars, and conferences. It addition an online virtual university is maintained and administrative support of the training program is performed. The criteria set forth below will be used to evaluate the contractor's technical proposals submitted to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work

Statement.

2. Rating Scheme

In accordance with EPAAG 1515.3.1, the following rating system will be used by the

Government to describe the contractor’s rating on each of the evaluation criteria:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses do not outweigh one another or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not outweighed by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unacceptable for purposes of an award

3. Technical Evaluation

The Government will evaluate timely submitted, responsive quotation submissions on a best value determination with technical evaluation being significantly more important than price. The evaluation criteria are listed in descending order of importance:

I. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE - The contractor shall be evaluated on its demonstrated corporate experience with requirements of similar size, scope and type with relation to the three factors listed below. Training Experience is more important than

Technical Experience and Management Experience combined.

A. Training Experience - The contractor and all subcontractors shall be evaluated on their demonstrated experience in conducting training courses and exercises, both classroom and non-classroom. Specifically, demonstrated experience in the development and delivery of innovative training of a complex technical nature utilizing creative educational techniques.

B. Technical Experience - The contractor and all subcontractors shall be evaluated on their demonstrated corporate technical experience in emergency response and remedial action relative to hazardous waste sites and toxic spills both accidental and deliberate.

C. Management Experience - The contractor and all subcontractors shall be evaluated on their demonstrated corporate experience in managing contracts of similar size, scope, and type as that specified in this solicitation.

II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF PROFESSIONAL

PERSONNEL - The contractor shall be evaluated on its demonstrated qualifications, experience, and expertise of the Personnel listed below. The combination of the two key personnel positions (Program Manager and Training Specialist) will be equally weighted with the Instructors. Resumes are required for individuals being proposed for the Key

Personnel (Program Manager and Training Specialist) and as well as for non-key

Instructors.

A. Program Manager

The Program Manager shall be evaluated on pertinent knowledge and experience, including demonstration of experience in a classroom setting, the development of training materials utilizing innovative and creative educational techniques, demonstrated managerial qualifications relative to managing contracts of a similar size, scope, and type, technical knowledge and experience of the proposed manager as it relates to emergency response and remedial action relative to hazardous waste sites and toxic spills both accidental and deliberate.

B. Training Specialist

The Training Specialist shall be evaluated on pertinent knowledge and experience, including professional qualifications, demonstration of experience in a classroom setting, development of training materials utilizing innovative and creative educational techniques, training other educators and/or instructors, evaluating classroom methods, reviewing course material for both classroom and on-line formats.

Note: The availability of individuals being proposed to support the Key Personnel positions (Program Manager and Training Specialist) shall be demonstrated through a letter of commitment to the contractor.

C. Instructors

The Instructors shall be evaluated on the demonstrated technical knowledge and experience of the proposed instructors as it relates to emergency response and remedial action relative to hazardous waste sites and toxic spills both accidental and deliberate and development and delivery of innovative training in a classroom setting utilizing state-of-the-art educational techniques.

III. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN - The contractor shall be evaluated on the demonstrated effectiveness of its program management plan. The plan should be specifically tailored to the activities that will be conducted to meet the requirements of the PWS, as measured by the following equally weighted sub criteria:

A. Operational Approach - The contractor’s operational approach to performing the day to day tasks of the Performance Work Statement in a timely and efficient manner will be evaluated. Factors such as staffing levels, labor mix, schedule, internal and external communication, and subcontractor arrangements will be evaluated on how effective they are in terms of ensuring quality work products delivered in a timely, efficient manner. The effectiveness of the contractor’s proposed system for ensuring excellent internal and external communication will be evaluated. The effectiveness of the contractor’s mobilization plan for contract start-up to ensure that the contract is staffed, equipped and fully functional within 30 calendar days after contract award will be evaluated.

B. Cost/Performance Monitoring - The contractor shall be evaluated on the demonstrated adequacy of the systems proposed to track and monitor costs and performance so as to ensure performance within the established budgetary constraints and scheduled deadlines. The contractor’s proposed system performance monitoring will be evaluated on its effectiveness to track performance, to mitigate potential performance problems, and to resolve actual performance problems.

IV. PAST PERFORMANCE - The contractor shall be evaluated on the demonstrated performance of all or at least five (5) contracts and subcontracts performed during the past three (3) years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in process, which are similar in nature to this requirement as specified in the Clause 23 entitled "Past

Performance Information.”

Offerors with no relevant past performance history, or for whom information on past performance is not available, will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably on past performance and receive a neutral rating.

Please follow the instructions in Clause 24 - EPAAR 1552.215-75 Past Performance

Information (Oct 2000) (Deviation) for submission.

V. EVALUATION OF RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS:

The Contractor’s Subcontracting Plan and Quality Management Plan (QMP) will each be rated on a PASS/FAIL basis as part of the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. Plan will be evaluated as follows:

A. Evaluation of Subcontracting Plan – The contractor’s Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated on whether it meets all the requirements of FAR 52.219-9

Small Business Subcontracting Plan. For the purposes of this solicitation and resulting task orders, the contractor’s subcontracting goals shall be consistent with the goals described in the provision, “EPA’s Goals for Subcontracting with Small Business.” Plans that meet all requirements will be rated as

“Pass”. Plans that do not meet all requirements will be rated “FAIL”. A contractor whose Subcontracting Plan is rated as “FAIL” at time of award will be ineligible for award.

B. Evaluation of Quality Management Plan – The contractor shall submit a

Quality Management Plan which demonstrates the capability for quality assurance which will be evaluated against the EPA Requirements for Quality

Management Plans (See Attachment 8) and determined to be acceptable or not acceptable. Notwithstanding the evaluation of a contractor with respect to the technical evaluation criteria or the evaluation of a contractor’s cost, a contractor that submits a plan that is ultimately unacceptable at time of award will not be eligible for contract award. The contractor’s Quality Management

Plan will be evaluated as part of the contractor’s responsibility determination.