Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Solicitation Provisions

FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far

(End of provision)

Provisions Incorporated by Reference:

FAR TITLE DATE

52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition NOV 2021 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options JUL 1990

M.2 Basis for Award

This acquisition will use formal source selection process and techniques in accordance with FAR

15.1. Award(s) will be made using a Best Value Continuum Tradeoff Process authorized at FAR 15.101-1 as described herein. The best value source selection will be based on an integrated assessment of the following three (3) evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined are significantly more important than cost/price.

A contract award(s) will be made to responsible Offerors whose proposals are determined to provide the best value to the Government based upon the evaluation criteria identified herewith.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an award to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the Government considering cost/price and non-cost/price factors with relative importance assigned to each, and in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.105. This may result in an award to other than the lowest-priced or highest rated Offeror.

In evaluating offers for the award, the Government is soliciting full and open to all offerors. The Government will award a contract(s) to a proposal(s) that represents the best value to the Government. That is, the offerors whose overall integrated proposal, including technical proposal, business proposal, and past performance, is most advantageous to the Government.

https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far

Failure to respond or follow the instructions regarding the organization and content of the Technical, Past Performance, and Business Proposals may result in the Offeror’s proposal being removed from further consideration. In accordance with FAR 2.101, best value is defined as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. While the evaluation of no single aspect of an offeror’s integrated proposal is expected to be the controlling factor in the selection of the successful offeror, all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined are significantly more important than cost/price.

M.3 Number of Contract Award(s):

The Government anticipates making a minimum of one contract award. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(6), the Government reserves the right to make multiple contract awards if, after considering the additional administrative costs, it is in the Government’s best interest to do so.

The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the Government. The solicitation may be amended or canceled as necessary to meet the Government’s requirements.

M.4 Competitive Range and Discussions:

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and cost/price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer 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.5 Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate the following factors:

Factor 1: Technical Proposal Evaluation

Criteria (In descending order of importance) Technical Approach Management Approach Staffing Plan Similar Experience Transition In/Transition Out Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation Factor 3: Business Proposal Evaluation (Cost/Price Evaluation)

The ratings given for the Technical and Past Performance factors will reflect the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Business Proposal will be evaluated but not rated. See the Business Proposal (Cost/Price) Factor below for details on how the Government will determine the total evaluated cost/price of each proposal.

M.6 Relative Importance

CDCM.01 Technical Strength in Relation to Cost/Price (Jul 2017)

Offerors are advised that all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price. If technical proposals are judged to be essentially equal, cost or price will become the determining factor. Award will be made to the responsible offeror submitting the proposal (Technical, Past Performance, and Business) determined to be the most advantageous and present the best value to the Government as evaluated under the criteria described in this Section.

(End of Provision)

The Government may select a lower-priced, lower-rated proposal if the Government concludes that the price premium involved in selecting a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal is not justified in light of the acceptable level of technical competence available at a lower price.

M.7 Evaluation Approach

The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror’s proposal. The Government will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to Section L and Section M of the solicitation.

M.7.1 Evaluation approach specific by factor:

M.7.1.1 Factor 1 - Technical Proposal Evaluation:

The Technical evaluation for this requirement is as follows:

Criteria (In descending order of importance) Technical Approach Management Approach Staffing Plan Similar Experience Transition In/Transition Out Plan

A. Technical Approach: The Offeror shall provide a discussion of their technical approach for providing the services required for this solicitation. The Offeror shall provide their understanding of the task requirements, and the operating environment. The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated for its ability to demonstrate its understanding of the task requirements and the operating environment. The Government will evaluate the quality and feasibility of the methodology and performance techniques describing how the Offeror proposes to perform each task. This technical approach will be evaluated according to the soundness, practicality, and feasibility of the Offeror’s technical approach for providing services required for by the solicitation.

The Offeror shall specifically address aspects such as technical understanding, methodology and approach, along with the requests listed below.

a. Provide a detailed statement of the scope and purpose of the contract to demonstrate complete understanding of the intent and requirements of the contract and potential problems that may be encountered.

b. Describe the proposed technical approach to comply with each of the requirements specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The proposed approach must ensure the achievement of timely and acceptable performance, as described in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), and other performance metrics included in the PWS and attachments to the solicitation/PWS. The Offeror shall provide a summary of planned operations in an Operations Manual summary for all contract-related services, processes, systems, and activities to perform the tasks in the Performance Work Statement. The technical approach and operations manual summary of planned operations shall reflect the Offeror’s understanding of the Zadroga Act and the World Trade Center Health Program.

c. Discuss the plan and solutions for overcoming difficulties involved with performing the work requirements the Performance Work Statement.

B. Management Approach: The Offeror shall provide a management plan that describes their approach for managing the work, identifying the roles and responsibilities of pertinent players, and subcontracting management plans, if applicable. The Offeror shall demonstrate an overall understanding of the project and adequacy and feasibility of plans to address all items in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This includes the detailed description of specific tasks to be performed, methods and resources (not staffing) to be used and a discussion of risks and plans for addressing them.

The Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated according to the soundness, practicality, and feasibility of the contractor’s management plan for the Performance Work Statement. The management approach will be evaluated to determine if the approach demonstrates a sound process for providing the necessary expertise to effectively and efficiently complete the tasks of the Performance Work Statement.

a. The Offeror shall describe their organizational structure and how they propose to manage the tasks, including a discussion of timelines and issues.

b. The Offeror shall provide rationale for their management approach.

c. The Offeror shall describe the methodology for managing the task, performance measures they will use to monitor performance, any management tools they will use, how they will ensure quality products are delivered, how they will mitigate risk, and how they will communicate. The

Offeror shall adequately describe the resources they propose to complete the work described in the PWS and a rationale for their proposed approach. The Offeror shall identify any resources (facilities, hardware, software, communications, etc.) that would be required above and beyond that already addressed as part of this solicitation.

d. The Offeror shall clearly indicate how the metrics in the PWS and its attachments will be monitored and corrective action taken if appropriate. The Offeror shall specify its approach for maintaining control of all contract change management issues.

e. The Offeror shall provide (1) a detailed description of how conflicts are managed; (2) a plan to ensure client satisfaction; and (3) a measurement of fiscal responsibility and accountability paying particular for the overall financial state of the company.

f. The Offeror shall identify anticipated management barriers and risks. The Offeror shall provide a description of their approach to risk management during the contract from a management perspective and the planned actions to mitigate or eliminate risks.

g. The Offeror shall identify (if any) assumptions or conditions relating to their Management Plan and qualifications presented therein. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that includes any assumption or condition that adversely impacts or affects the Government’s requirement.

h. The Offeror shall describe how it will ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness in meeting contract requirements, including how the Offeror will monitor and evaluate the process and progress of work performed by the Offeror and subcontractors, if any; identify promising practices and meet performance standards and quality benchmarks of the PWS and PWS/solicitation attachments; maintain industry quality standards, credentials, and accreditations; deploy useful new technologies or successful interventions; and take results to scale.

C. Staffing Plan: The Offeror shall provide a staffing plan that demonstrates their understanding of the labor requirements for the performance work statement and the personnel required to complete said requirements. The plan should address the proposed labor categories, descriptions of the services to be provided, estimated labor hours, etc.

The Staffing Plan will be evaluated according to the soundness, practicality, and feasibility of the offeror’s staffing plan for the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan and staffing to be used, assessing the feasibility of the plan and the Offeror's approach to mitigating potential risks.

The Offeror shall provide qualified technical labor resources in numbers adequate to address the technical and administrative requirements and deliverable schedules outlined in Section 4.3 --- Staffing Requirements in the PWS. The Staffing Plan shall include:

a. A staffing matrix showing type and number of staffing resources readily available for the

Start of Healthcare Delivery (SHCD), including breakdowns by skill sets and any related technical certifications. The matrix of proposed personnel shall also include their experience, education, skills, and qualifications to do the job. The backgrounds of the personnel will reflect the length and variety of experience and expertise in tasks similar to the tasks required by this solicitation and any relevant training. Offerors must use the labor categories in ATT006 – SurvivorCCE_LaborCategory, in developing its staffing matrix. If the Offeror determines that other additional labor categories are required, the Offeror must submit an accompanying one-sentence rationale for each additional labor category proposed.

b. A description of the Offeror’s approach to rapidly obtain and/or replace qualified staffing resources to support existing and new contract work, and to meet changing workload requirements, and address employee turnover, including a table showing employee turnover rates for each of the past three years; and resumes for proposed Key Personnel.

c. Document the decision-making authority of the Administrator and/or Medical Director Key Personnel roles as related to other elements of the organization. The percentage of time each staff member shall contribute to the Program will be adequately identified. The extent to which outside consultants or specialists will be used and evidence of availability shall be indicated.

d. If subcontractors are proposed, provide information to support their qualifications as well.

The Offeror shall identify any portions of the task that will be performed by subcontractors.

This information must include the subcontracting firm and the specific duties, labor categories, and percentage of effort (full-time equivalents) that will be performed by the subcontractor. The Offeror shall also furnish a written copy of the draft subcontracting agreement(s). The Offeror shall also provide copies of any Service Level Agreements.

D. Transition In/Transition-Out Plan: The transition-in/transition-out plan will be evaluated according to the soundness, practicality, and feasibility of the Offeror’s Transition In/Out Plan for this requirement. The soundness will be evaluated based on an approach that ensures successful achievement while limiting impact to the existing program.

The Offeror shall provide a Transition Plan for the transition-in and transition-out of this contract. The plan shall include a technical and management transition approach that is clear and complete including the timeline and resources required for the transition. The Transition Plan shall detail the planned transition methodology in logical sequence to ensure a smooth transition of all tasks/subtasks of the PWS without interruption or degradation of service levels. The plan shall include an approach that ensures the successful achievement while limiting impact to existing programs/projects. The plan shall also include a complete description of risks (cost, technical and performance to both the Offeror and the Government), issues, and risk mitigation strategies. Offerors shall also include all transition costs within their cost proposal. Please note that the continuity of services clause 52.237-3 is applicable and should be considered in developing your transition plan.

The Offeror shall provide a draft Transition-In/Transition-Out Plan that includes:

i. Assignment of dedicated personnel to lead and manage transition and implementation efforts;

ii. Defined project management plans for implementing all tasks and deliverables in accordance with the PWS;

iii. Assignment of staff utilized during Transition-In/Transition-Out, including subcontractors, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities to include the proposed labor mix of personnel who will be responsible for implementing Transition-In/Transition-Out, including the identification of key personnel and the percentage of their time devoted to the contract;

iv. Hiring plan during Transition-In to ensure sufficient staff levels at Start of Healthcare Delivery to meet all requirements in the PWS, and retention plan during Transition-Out to ensure sufficient staff levels through the end of the contract;

v. Transition activities, including implementation of Transition-in Communications Plan, testing of system integration and customer service capabilities to demonstrate readiness for Start of Healthcare Delivery (Section 4.1.3);

vi. Details on how the offeror shall ensure that its systems are ready to appropriately facilitate the administration of medically necessary healthcare services by the start of healthcare delivery.

System testing methodology must be incorporated as part of the Plan; and

vii. Coordination of benefits plan.

The Offeror shall describe how all required services will be successfully implemented between the contract start date and the Start of Healthcare Delivery (SHCD). The plan shall include:

• Composition of the transition team and dedicated resources including prime and subcontractors, if any, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities;

• Defined transition activities, including testing of system integration and customer service capabilities from implementation through fully operationalized phases with defined timeline, work breakdown structures, critical paths and milestones; and

• Coordination and communication with the incumbent with defined list of transition needs and dependencies

The Transition Plan should reflect sufficiency of the Offeror’s ability to troubleshoot and resolve problems, address workflow process stability, manage system upgrades. The Offeror shall describe its internal and external verification and validation processes throughout the lifecycle of its systems proposed in the PWS.

E. Similar Experience: Offerors shall provide a description of three (3) contracts performed within the past three years that clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s experience in performing projects of similar scope, size and complexity to the requirements described in the solicitation.

Contracts listed may include those entered into with the Federal Government, agencies of state and local governments, and commercial customers.

The following information shall be provided for each reference:

a. Contract number, customer/agency name and contract title;

b. brief narrative description of the work performed for each of those contracts, including a discussion of any problems encountered/corrective actions and significant accomplishments;

c. dollar value, contract type, period of performance, place of performance, and the number and types of personnel used in the performance of the contract; and

d. name, address and phone number of at least two (2) customer contacts (Contracting Officer and Project Officer) for each of the identified contracts.

The Government will evaluate the suitability of the offeror’s similar experience descriptions to determine whether the experience exhibits the ability to successfully support the requirements of the solicitation and the offeror’s proposed technical approach.

The Similar experience submission does not count towards the 40-page limit for the technical proposal.

CDCM.03 Evaluation of the Data Management Plan (DMP) (Nov 2018) The Data Management Plan submitted as a part of the offeror’s proposal will be evaluated during the pre- award process for quality and completeness and will potentially require later revision as the DMP will be updated during the contract period of performance. The DMP will be rated on a “Pass/Fail” basis considering the clearness, appropriateness, and inclusiveness of the elements described under Data Management Plan (Instructions). The Government’s evaluation will consider the level or magnitude of the standards to be used for the collected or generated public health data as well as the types of mechanisms for or limitations in providing access to and sharing of the data. Evaluation will also consider how well the DMP clearly outlines plans for archiving and long-term preservation of the data.

For statements of work that involve defined projects which include public health data collection or generation of data, proposals submitted without the required DMP will be deemed unacceptable. For contracts where data collection or generation of data activities may later become known and necessary (e.g. via contract modification), DMPs will be required to be submitted for evaluation and acceptance during the period of performance and must be developed in accordance with Public Access to CDC Digital Public Health Data.

(End of Provision)

M.8 Factor 2: Past/Present Performance – General Evaluation Methodology

The Past/Present Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s relative record of past performance. In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and all proposed major subcontractors. A major subcontractor is defined as one whose subcontract is for more than 30% of the total proposed price. In either case, the prime contractor and proposed major subcontractors will be assessed individually and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the Offeror’s Past/Present Performance rating.

The Government will conduct a Performance Risk Assessment using both independent data and data provided by Offerors. Offerors will be evaluated based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the Offeror’s past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort.

Recent performance is defined as contracts performed and/or completed within the past three years of this solicitation release date. Recent performance also includes current projects.

Relevant performance is defined as contracts that are for efforts that have a logical connection with the efforts required by the solicitation. Areas of relevance include projects cited as comparable to the current program in terms of scope, complexity, and/or cost/price.

When assessing performance risk, the Government will focus its inquiry on the past/present performance of the Offeror and its proposed major subcontractors as it relates to all solicitation requirements.

Step 1. For each “recent” reference received and any independent information obtained, the Government will evaluate the "relevance" of the work.

Step 2. For each “recent” reference received and any independent information obtained, the Government will evaluate the "quality" of performance of each Offeror’s past/present performance.

Step 3. Finally, the Government will consider the combination of "relevance" and "quality" and assign a "confidence" rating from Table 3 below. The confidence rating reflects the government's opinion of the Offeror's ability to successfully perform the Government's requirement considering both the "relevance" and "quality" of an Offeror's experience for the references received as well as other sources of information obtained by the Government. The confidence rating is an "overall" past/present performance rating; accordingly, Offerors will receive a single confidence rating.

(a) A significant achievement or problem in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any element may result in an overall high-risk rating. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include the most relevant three past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposal.

(b) Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the Offerors.

(c) In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Government will not evaluate the Offeror favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Accordingly, the lack of a relevant performance record will result in an "unknown" performance risk assessment. The Government may determine that a “highest confidence” or “high confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “unknown confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff decision.

Table 3 - Past/Present Performance Risk Assessment Confidence Ratings

Adjectival Description

Definition

Highest Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record and relevance of experience, highest confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record and relevance of experience, high confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Average Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record and relevance of experience, average confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Little Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record and relevance of experience, little confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record and relevance of experience, no confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record, unknown confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

M.9 Factor 3: Cost/Price Evaluation (Business Proposal Evaluation):

a) Cost/Price Evaluation: Each Offeror's business proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and consistent with the Offeror's technical approach;

whether it reflects a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements; whether it contains balanced unit pricing; and whether the final cost/price is fair and reasonable. In its evaluation, the Government may use commercial published data, same or similar CDC contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, field pricing reports, comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government. Further, the Government may utilize information other than cost or pricing data provided in support of the cost/price portion of the offer when evaluating the offer. The Government reserves the right to vary from the stated task combinations at award.

In addition, with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal to all Offerors (i.e. ODC – Travel, ODC – Material), if applicable, adjustments to the total proposed cost/price will be made for Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror's proposed approach. The total evaluated price will be the sum of the Base Period CLINs plus the sum of the option Period CLINs. The evaluation will not bind the Government to purchase any of the options. Proposed travel costs will be used for evaluation purposes only.

b) Cost Realism: A cost realism analysis of the proposal may be conducted to independently review and evaluate specific elements and profit or fee of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

c) Evaluation of Options: FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. The Offeror’s total evaluated price will also include the six-month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated price of this six-month period will be calculated by taking the monthly price of the last option period and multiplying it by six to establish the estimated price for the six-month option to extend services.

M.10 Discussions and Final Proposal Revisions

The Government reserves the right and intends to award without discussions. Each Offeror should submit its best proposal as the opportunity to submit a revised proposal is not anticipated.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, these discussions will be held with only those Offerors determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the competitive range. The Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted and 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.