Section IV_Evaluation Criteria Basis for Award.pdf

EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

PPPL will evaluate proposals submitted in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) and plans to award a subcontract to the Offeror whose proposal represents the Best Value offer(s) to PPPL on the basis of 1) Offeror Responsiveness; 2) Professional and Management Ability; 3) Organizational Ability; and 4) Price, as explained below.

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the qualified, responsive, and responsible Offeror whose evaluated proposal provides the best value to PPPL. Evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Best value will be determined by a tradeoff analysis of comparative differences in the value of technical merit with differences in cost / price. PPPL is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost / price.

2. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Offerors’ initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price, quality, and technical standpoint. Upon receipt of proposals, PPPL may contact Offerors with a request for clarifications, if required. Once clarifications are received, proposals shall be screened for responsiveness. Proposals determined to be responsive shall be evaluated using the methodology described in this document.

Prior to final evaluation, competitive range Offerors may be required to make oral presentations of their proposals either remotely (video) or onsite at PPPL/Princeton University offices. Offeror participants should include all persons on the engagement team including the Engagement/Project/Program Manager and/or Director/Partner, but no more than five (5) persons who are knowledgeable of the RFP and the response submitted by the Offeror’s organization and who are qualified to answer questions relating to the proposal.

If conducted, the purpose of the oral presentation will be to:

a. Provide a summary of the respective Offeror’s proposal for the benefit of PPPL; and

b. Permit Review Team members to ask questions pertaining to the Offeror’s proposal.

Offerors will be provided no more than 2 hours each for oral presentations, to be inclusive of a summary of the proposal contents and a question-and-answer session.

PPPL intends to make an award without further discussions; it reserves the right to conduct further discussions, if discussions are in its best interest of PPPL.

3. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS, FACTORS AND CRITERIA

In evaluating an Offeror’s proposal, a numerical scoring system shall be utilized. Each Offeror shall receive a final technical score based on the evaluation criteria and scoring system for each of the evaluation factors. PPPL will then compare the Offerors’ criteria scores and evaluated prices as it conducts its Best Value Trade Off Analysis.

3.1. OFFEROR RESPONSIVENESS (NOT RATED)

Immediately after receipt, the proposal packages will be screened for “Offeror Responsiveness,” ensuring that the mandatory requirements are satisfied. A proposal will be considered “responsive” if the proposal is in compliance with all the requirements as outlined in the RFP.

PPPL reserves the right to consider any proposal “non-responsive” and reject it, in total or in part, with or without prior discussion with the Offeror, if the proposal:

a. is not submitted in the format specified in the RFP or does not include all of the information requested by PPPL.

b. is not in accordance with the instructions contained in the RFP.

c. contains irregularities of any kind; or

d. is submitted by an Offeror who does not meet the minimum qualifications.

Proposals found to be “non-responsive” will be eliminated from further consideration. Mandatory requirements are as follows:

Offeror Responsiveness Evaluation Offeror provided a complete proposal in the required format with all the required documentation (including all signatures), as defined in the Request for Proposal (RFP) Instructions for Proposal Preparation and as stated above.

□ YES □ NO

Offeror outlined a minimum of five (5) years’ experience in providing Staffing Services. □ YES □ NO

3.2. WEIGHTED EVALUATION CRITERIA

Only proposals that are determined to be “responsive” and meet the mandatory requirements will be distributed for evaluation. The following criteria will be used for evaluation purposes:

Evaluation Factors Description Relative Importance

Factor 1: Professional and Project Management Ability

Subfactor 1 – Offeror Capability

Subfactor 2 – Methodology

Subfactor 3 – Qualifications of Personnel

65 points

Factor 2: Organizational Ability Subfactor 1 - Relevant Experience

Subfactor 2 - Past Performance

35 points

Total 100 points

3.3. FACTOR 1: PROFESSIONAL AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT ABILITY (MAXIMUM 65 POINTS)

In evaluating each Offeror’s overall capability to perform the work required by this RFP, the review team will consider their professional expertise, qualifications, project management abilities, and staffing plan.

Evaluation will be based on the information conveyed in the Offeror’s proposal. To determine if an Offeror possesses the professional ability to perform the work described in this RFP, the Review Team will consider the following criteria:

Subfactor 1: Offeror Capability (Maximum 20 points)

The Offeror must demonstrate and describe their capabilities to; fulfill identified skill categories as provided in RFP Section 1-Statement of Work; identify what sets the agency apart from other staffing agencies; identify the agency benefit offerings describing their benefits, holiday and other elections offered to their staff as PPPL seeks Offerors with holiday schedules similar to PPPL’s so as to provide consistency with that of PPPL’s; provide feedback within 2 business days of receipt of a request and identify suitably skilled temporary staffing within 1 week; and identify how they are qualified to handle PPPL as clients.

Subfactor 1: - Offeror Capability (Maximum 20 points)

Points Description

20 points Exceeds Expectations-Offeror demonstrates robust capability to provide staff for the required skill categories as requested. Exceeds the majority of all the requirements for capabilities.

13 points Meets Expectations-Offeror demonstrates sufficient capability to provide staff for at least some of the required skill categories. Meets most of the requirements for capabilities.

7 points Partially Meets Expectations-Offeror demonstrates marginal capability to provide staff for at least one of the skill categories. Meets some of the requirements for capabilities.

0 points Below Expectations- Offeror demonstrates insufficient capacity to provide the required staff in all areas. Fails to meet requirements.

Subfactor 2: Methodology (Maximum 25 points)

The Offeror must provide a complete description of proposed approach and methodology to fill job orders, based on the skill categories and job descriptions, requirements, and the duration of the assignment. Description of Offeror’s process and procedures on how they validate, and verify personnel background information, and how they deploy and monitor the performance of the personnel.

Submission Requirements:

1. The methodology used to fill a job order request for temporary personnel and provide details on how and where they are sourced and how long it takes to place. This section should include Offeror’s Subcontractors & Small Business Partners- the Offeror should describe any plan to subcontract any work to lower-tier Vendors. Offeror should provide a detailed breakdown of what work and/ or services are to be performed by each of the team members or lower-tier and identify in its proposal if the lower-tier Vendor is a small business under the NAICs code identified herein.

2. A detailed description of their agency’s validation processes, which may include: testing, background checks, reference checking and e-verify.

3. A detailed process of interviewing and criteria of how their agency determines if a candidate meets the qualifications of the position.

4. Their agency’s ability and success rate at placing long-term temporary assignments and any metrics they have in place to track time to fill, and quality of hire.

5. The process of monitoring employee performance (e.g., temporary personnel exhibit excessive tardiness, absenteeism, personality conflicts, or other employee relations issues.)

6. The policy or practice for replacing temporary personnel.

7. The agency’s process to fill niche or “hard-to-fill” positions and include time requirements expected.

8. The agency’s affiliation (if any), partnership, or direct access to other staffing agencies specialty or niche talent pool. (e.g., energy, engineering, etc.)

Subfactor 2: Methodology (Maximum 25 points)

Points Description

25 points Exceeds Expectations- Offeror demonstrates excellent understanding of the requirements and provided clear and concise methodology and approach to meet or exceed PPPL’s overall objectives. Has provided exceptional strengths that will be significantly beneficial to PPPL.

18 points Meets Expectations- Offeror demonstrates good understanding of the requirements and provided clear and concise methodology and approach to meet PPPLs’ overall objectives. Offeror meets most of the requirements.

8 points Partially Meets Expectations - Offeror demonstrates sufficient capability that satisfy some of the requirements and provided methodology and approach to partially meet PPPL’s overall objectives.

0 points Below Expectations- Offeror demonstrates insufficient capacity to provide the required workers in all areas. Fails to meet requirements.

Subfactor 3: Qualifications of Personnel (Maximum 20 points)

The Review Team will review the professional qualifications and experience of the Offeror’s personnel proposed to work on this subcontract to ensure personnel have the training, credentials, qualifications, knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience necessary to perform assigned tasks.

Documentation provided by the Offeror must include resumes of all proposed team members, including details describing the individual’s qualifications and experience which makes them particularly suited to recruit individuals based on the type of personnel required.

Subfactor 3: Qualifications of Personnel (Maximum 20 points)

Points Description

20 points

Exceeds Expectations –Offeror’s capabilities exceed all requirements in personnel qualifications. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies are identified. Offeror demonstrates a high level of staff qualification, as evidenced by education and professional credentials.

13 points

Meets Expectations - Offeror is capable of meeting most of the stated requirements in personnel qualifications. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable. Offeror demonstrates staff qualification, as evidenced by education and professional credentials.

7 points Partially Meets Expectations – Offeror is capable of satisfying some stated requirements in personnel qualifications. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are not easily correctable.

0 points Below Expectations – Offeror is not capable of satisfying stated requirements.

3.4. Factor 2: Organizational Ability (Maximum 35 points)

In evaluating each Offeror’s overall capability to perform the work required by this RFP, the review team will consider both their total relevant domain experience, project management abilities, and staffing plan to supply the required skill categories and services The review team will also consider the relevance of past performance of similar contracts. Evaluation will be based on the information conveyed in the Offeror’s proposal as well as from references and previous contracts. To determine if an Offeror possesses the professional ability to perform the work described in this RFP, the following criteria will be considered:

Subfactor 1: Relevant Experience (Maximum 20 points)

The Offeror shall demonstrate that a capable and technically diverse organization exists to meet the expectations of this contract. Evidence provided in the Offeror’s proposal as well as input from references from former clients and previous contracts will be considered. The proposal shall be scored according to the following standards:

Documentation provided by the Offeror must include a summary of clients of similar size, scale, and sophistication of PPPL.

Subfactor 1: - Relevant Experience (Maximum 20 points)

Points Description

20 points

Exceeds Expectations-Offeror core abilities exceed the amount of required capabilities and has demonstrated success actively providing staffing services for governmental and nongovernmental clients. Proposal provides a substantial understanding and knowledge of the scope of the requirements.

13 points Meets Expectations- Offeror core abilities satisfy most of the required capabilities and has demonstrated success in staffing services for most governmental and nongovernmental clients. Proposal provides some understanding and knowledge of the scope the requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable.

7 points

Partially Meets Expectations- Offeror is capable of satisfying a nominal amount of the required capabilities and has demonstrated some success in staffing services for clients. Proposal minimally meets expectations in the understanding and knowledge of the scope of the requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are not easily correctable.

0 points Below Expectations – Offeror is not capable of satisfying stated requirements.

Subfactor 2: Past Performance (Maximum 15 points)

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an Offeror has satisfied its customers (including PPPL if applicable) in the past. The Review Team may contact select Offeror’s references to ask if:

1. The Offeror delivered quality services compliant with the customer’s requirements.

2. The Offeror’s performance conformed with the terms and conditions of its contract, including the delivery schedule and budgeted time/cost.

3. The Offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance and committed to customer satisfaction.

4. The Offeror’s team had relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Other sources of information may be used to establish or verify the Offeror’s past performance, including, but not limited to federal, state, or local governmental agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media or electronic databases.

Documentation must include client references including points of contact and contact information.

Subfactor 2: Past Performance (Maximum 15 points)

Points Description

15 points Exceeds Expectations – Offeror received excellent reviews on past performance as described above from clients similar to PPPL. The

Offeror has demonstrated the ability to staff, manage, and oversee the contract obligations.

10 points Meets Expectations – Offeror received good reviews as described above. The Offeror has demonstrated the ability to staff, manage, and oversee the contract obligations.

5 points Partially Meets Expectations - Offeror received satisfactory reviews as described above. The Offeror has demonstrated some ability to staff, manage and oversee contract obligations.

0 points Below Expectations -Offeror did not receive good reviews from references.

3.5. Reasonableness of cost/fee proposal (NOT RATED)

Offeror’s price proposal shall include markup and fee schedules for the range of services and roles provided utilizing the pricing sheet. Costs and fees, including proposed labor hour rates will be evaluated to determine that they are fair and reasonable. Pricing will be provided to the Review Team after the technical evaluation is completed. Best value will be determined by a tradeoff analysis of comparative differences in the value of technical merit with differences in cost / price. PPPL is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost / price.