Section IV_SI Evaluation and Basis for Award_RFP 26-003_.pdf

RFP 26-003

Evaluation and Basis for Award

1 | P a g e

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 supplier whose proposal represents the Best Value offer(s) to PPPL on the basis of the criteria outlined in the Attachment 1 Statement of Work for Internal Audit Services.

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the qualified, responsive, and responsible supplier 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

Suppliers’ initial proposal should contain the supplier’s best terms from a price, quality, and technical standpoint.

Upon receipt of proposals, PPPL may contact suppliers with a request for clarifications, if required. Once clarifications are received, proposals shall be screened for responsiveness. Only proposals determined to be responsive shall be evaluated using the methodology described in this document.

3. ORAL PRESENTATIONS

Prior to final evaluation, competitive range suppliers may be required to make oral presentations of their proposals either remotely (video) or onsite at PPPL/Princeton University offices. Supplier 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 supplier’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 supplier’s proposal for the benefit of PPPL; and,

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

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

The oral presentations will provide a unified format that will be used for the selected firms to provide a detailed proposal overview. It will also address any questions for further clarification within the related weighted factors with specific emphasis on the Initial Task Order.

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.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS / SUBFACTORS / CRITERIA

In evaluating a Supplier’s proposal, a numerical scoring system shall be utilized. Each Supplier 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 Suppliers’ criteria scores and evaluated prices as it conducts its Best Value Trade Off Analysis.

https://www.pppl.gov/

2 | P a g e

4.1 Supplier Responsiveness (Not Rated)

Immediately after receipt, the proposal packages will be screened for “Supplier 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 Supplier, 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 a Supplier 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 ten (10) years’ experience in providing internal audit services for governmental clients. □ YES □ NO

Offeror provided evidence of a satisfactory Quality Assurance Review/Independent Peer Review of the Offeror’s Internal Audit function completed within the past five years that fulfills the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Global Internal Audit Standards Quality Assurance requirement.

□ YES □ NO

4.2 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 – Understanding of Requirements

Subfactor 2 – Proposed Audit Approach and Degree of Compliance with Professional Requirements

Subfactor 3 – Work Implementation and Management

Subfactor 4 – Qualifications of Personnel

65 points

3 | P a g e

Factor 2: Organizational Ability

Subfactor 1 - Relevant Experience

Subfactor 2 - Past Performance

35 points

Total 100 points

4.3 Evaluation Criteria

4.3.1 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 offeror shall provide the 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 following will be evaluated:

Subfactor 1: - Understanding of Requirements (Maximum 15 points)

The Offeror’s proposal must clearly convey an overall understanding of the scope and complexity of the compliance/technical requirements for this effort. The Offeror must demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the various processes, procedures, professional standards, and federal regulations required to perform the work as specified.

Documentation provided by the Offeror must include a sample audit program for the payroll audit; the scope is provided in the attached Statement of Work.

Subfactor 1: Understanding of Requirements (Maximum 15 points)

Points Description

15 points

Exceeds Expectations – Offeror’s capabilities exceed all requirements, and the excess capability would be beneficial to PPPL. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies. Proposal conveys a deep and insightful understanding and comprehensive knowledge of the scope and complexity of the compliance/technical requirements.

10 points Meets Expectations – Offeror is capable of satisfying all stated requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable.

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

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

Subfactor 2: Proposed Audit Approach and Degree of Compliance with Professional Requirements

(Maximum 15 points) The Offeror’s proposal must convey an approach that will result in delivery of audit work products that fulfill all of the requirements set forth in the Statement of Work and meet the applicable requirements of the IIA IPPF.

Documentation provided by the Offeror must include a sample audit report and a description of the Offeror’s audit process, including details of processes followed to provide quality assurance and

4 | P a g e supervision of completed projects.

Subfactor 2: Proposed Audit Approach and Degree of Compliance with Professional Requirements (Maximum 15 points) Points Description

15 points

Exceeds Expectations - Offeror’s capabilities exceed all requirements and the excess capability would be beneficial to PPPL. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The proposal and required documentation clearly convey a comprehensive approach to deliver the audit work products and meet applicable requirements of the IIA IPPF.

10 points Meets Expectations - Offeror is capable of satisfying all stated requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable.

5 points Partially Meets Expectations - Offeror is capable of satisfying some stated

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

Subfactor 3: Work Implementation and Management (Maximum 15 points)

The Offeror must convey they have a sound plan to conduct and complete the planned work scope including a comprehensive, detailed, and realistic schedule and that they possess the ability to successfully manage and oversee the work to completion and ensure a quality end product is delivered on time and within the established scope statement.

Documentation provided by Offeror must include a detailed audit schedule, labor categories, and estimated hours.

Subfactor 3: Work Implementation and Management (Maximum 15 points)

15 points

Exceeds Expectations – Offeror’s capabilities exceed all requirements, and the excess capability would be beneficial to PPPL. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The proposal clearly conveys a sound and thorough plan and schedule that demonstrates achievability of the planned work scope; the Offeror demonstrates the ability to successfully manage and oversee the work to completion and ensure the highest quality end product is delivered on time and within the established scope statement.

10 points Meets Expectations - Offeror is capable of satisfying all stated requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable.

5 points Partially Meets Expectations - Offeror is capable of satisfying some stated

Subfactor 4: Qualifications of Personnel (Maximum 20 points) Offeror’s proposal shall convey 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.

5 | P a g e

Documentation provided by the Offeror must include resumes of all proposed service team members, including details of training received in the past two years as well as training program opportunities that will allow team members to retain and enhance skills.

Subfactor 4: Qualifications of Personnel (Maximum 20 points)

20 points

Exceeds Expectations – Offeror’s capabilities exceed all requirements, and the excess capability would be beneficial to PPPL. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The proposal includes a team of experienced professionals with relevant training and certifications. The Offeror’s team have specific experience with PPPL like entities.

10 points Meets Expectations – Offeror is capable of satisfying all stated requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable.

5 points Partially Meets Expectations – Offeror is capable of satisfying some stated

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

4.3.2 Factor 2: Organizational Ability (Maximum 35 points)

In evaluating each Offeror’s overall capability to determine if an Offeror has adequate experience in successfully performing internal audit work of a similar nature and scale, the evaluation will consider both the total relevant experience and past performance provided by the Offeror with their proposal and will consider the following criteria:

Subfactor 1: Relevant Experience (Maximum 20 points) The Offeror shall demonstrate that a capable and technically diverse organization exists to meet the expectations of the subcontract, including the key technical leadership personnel, teaming, and supporting personnel with experience in their respective fields, as applicable. Evidence provided in the Offeror’s proposal as well as input from references from former clients and previous contracts will be considered.

The organizational experience shall be evaluated on the basis of its breadth, depth, and relevance to the work described in this RFP. The Offeror’s proposal shall provide evidence on the nature of the work performed and the similarity to the work that will be required at PPPL. 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)

20 points

Exceeds Expectations - Offeror’s capabilities exceed all requirements and the excess capability would be beneficial to PPPL. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies. Offeror has been actively engaged in providing internal audit services for governmental clients for a significant period of time (more than ten years) and performed work similar to what would be required at PPPL.

6 | P a g e

10 points Meets Expectations - Offeror is capable of satisfying all stated requirements. Any weaknesses or deficiencies are potentially correctable.

5 points Partially Meets Expectations - Offeror is capable of satisfying some stated

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 Offeror shall provide references that address the following: (1) the Offeror delivered a quality work product 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; and (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 provided by the Supplier must include a minimum of three (3) Supplier’s references (with contact information), description of past performance and summary of auditing services provided.

Documentation provided by the Supplier must be included the proposal.

Subfactor 2: Past Performance (Maximum 15 points)

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

10 points Meets Expectations – Offeror received good reviews as described above.

5 points Partially Meets Expectations – Offeror received satisfactory reviews as described above.

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

5.0 Estimated Price (Not Rated)

Offeror’s price proposal shall include:

1. Fully burdened rates for each labor category identified and defined within the Statement of Work (Section 7.0), reference Attachment 1_Audit_SOW;

2. Estimated proposal cost for the Initial Task Order Statement of Work, reference Attachment 1 Audit

SOW, Section 1.2 Annual Risk Assessment and Work Plan for Fiscal Year FY27 shall include the appropriate identified labor categories with an estimated number of hours broken out.

Pricing will be considered after the technical evaluation is completed and will be reviewed for fair and reasonableness.

7 | P a g e

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.

-end Evaluation and Basis for Award-