Solicitation - Evaluation Factors Down Select.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Basis for Award

The Government intends to award a single task order to the responsible Quoter whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. Using the best-value, tradeoff process, the Government will evaluate each proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

Phase I, Criteria 1 – Technical Approach: Define the project approach, plan and methods to be used for the successful preparation, management and execution of the project meeting Phase I, Criteria 2 – Resumes of Proposed Key Personnel Phase I, Criteria 3 – Relevant Past Performance Phase II, Criteria 4 – Oral Presentation – Proposed Solution Phase II, Criteria 5 – Price

Phase I Evaluation Criteria, when combined, are more important than Phase II evaluation criteria, when combined. Within Phase I, Criteria 1, 2 and 3 are listed in descending order of importance. Within Phase II, Criteria 4 is listed in descending order of importance. All non-price evaluation criteria, when combined, are significantly more important than Criteria 5 – Price. As the non-price merits of competing Quoter’s proposals approach equal, Criteria 5 will become more important in the best value trade-off decision. Criteria are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced proposal.

Evaluations will be based solely on the materials included in the proposal. Therefore, the Quoter’s’s initial quote should contain the Quoter’s best terms. After receipt of proposals, the Government will conduct an evaluation. However, during the evaluation process, the Government may, solely at its discretion, communicate with Quoters regarding proposal elements. At any time prior to selection, including upon receipt of proposal, the Government may exclude a proposal from further consideration for any material failure to follow instructions, including the omission of required information, or when the Quoter is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated quoters being considered for award.

Evaluation Criteria

Both the downselect (Phase I) and the Phase II will be performed using confidence ratings (Table 1). 2.1 Comparative Evaluation

Following receipt of responses (including oral presentations), the Government may perform a comparative analysis (comparing quoter responses to one another) to select the quoter that is best suited to fulfill the requirements, based on the quoters’ responses to the factors outlined in this RFQ and their relative importance.

Table 1 – Criteria 1-5 Confidence Ratings

Upon completion of Phase I and II evaluations, the Government may perform a comparative evaluation of the quotations (comparing quoter responses to one another) to select the quotation that is best suited to fulfill the requirements, based on the quoters’ responses to the criteria outlined in this RFQ and their relative importance.

The Government anticipates selecting the best-suited quoter from initial responses, without engaging in exchanges with quoters. Quoters are strongly encouraged to submit their best technical solutions and price in response to this RFQ.

Once the Government determines the quoter that is the best-suited (i.e., the apparent successful quoter), the Government reserves the right to communicate with only that quoter to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize a task order with that quoter. These issues may include technical and price. If the parties cannot successfully address any remaining issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government reserves the right to communicate with the next best-suited quoter based on the original analysis and address any remaining issues. Once the Government has begun communications with the next best-suited quoter, no further communications with the previous quoter will be entertained until after the task order has been awarded. This process shall continue until an agreement is successfully reached and a task order is awarded.

Phase I, Criteria 1 –Technical Approach: Migration and Implementation

The Quoterr’s technical approach will be evaluated based upon on their understanding of the objectives of the PWS and planned execution of the project. This refers to the manner in which the Quoter proposes to plan, manage, control, and provide the services and deliverables. The extent to which the Quoter demonstrates a solid understanding of addressing anticipated problems, issues, constraints, organizations and system(s) involved and the approach and methodologies proposed to ensure successful accomplishment of all tasks in the PWS will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate the Quoter’s proposed technical approach based on their demonstrated understanding of the objectives of the PWS and planned execution of the project and will be assigned a confidence rating. The following elements will be evaluated:

a) The manner in which the Quoter proposes to plan, manage, control, and provide the required services and deliverables;

b) The extent to which the Quoter understands the problems, issues, constraints, organizations and system(s) involved;

c) The methodologies proposed to ensure successful accomplishment of the work.

This submission shall be limited to 7 pages

Phase I, Criteria 2: Prior Demonstrated Experience

The Government will assess its confidence that the Quoter will successfully perform the work, by evaluating the Quoter's demonstrated experience from three contracts/orders performed within the past five (5) years (from the date of this RFQ release). Prior experience will be evaluated to assess the expectation of successful outcomes based on the extent to which the Quoter has successfully performed on systems similar to the portal requirements described in the Performance Work Statement. The Government will also evaluate the relevance of the Quoter’s demonstrated prior experience to the PWS technical and management and execution of the project meetings.

The submission shall include the following information for at least two (2) contracts:

• Points of contact: Include name, agency/company, address, phone number, and email address for the Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, and any other pertinent officials who can verify performance.

• Contract Information: Provide the contract title, number, and task order number(s) when applicable.

• Relevancy to the Performance Work Statement (PWS): Describe the project and magnitude of work performed to demonstrate its relevance to the subject solicitation's PWS. Provide sufficient detail for proper relevancy determination.

• Contract Value: Include the total original, present, and/or final contract dollar value.

• Performance Explanation: Explain any problems, delays, or cost overruns encountered, and the corrective actions taken.

• Contract Holder Status: Specify whether the offeror was the prime or sub-contractor

• This submission shall be limited to 3 pages

Phase I - Criteria 3: Resumes of Proposed Key Personnel

The Government will assess the extent to which the Quoter identifies and commits Key Personnel with appropriate experience and qualifications and will be assigned a confidence rating. Resumes will be evaluated based on the currency, quality and depth of experience of individual personnel working on similar projects (size, scope, magnitude, duration, and complexity of professional credentials and the continuing learning opportunities available to its personnel.

Resumes must be submitted for all key personnel, should highlight the qualifications necessary to perform the tasks identified in the PWS and include the following information:

1. Name, title, tenure and years of experience.

2. Educational degrees and professional certifications.

3. Experience working with meetings of similar scope, size and duration.

4. Accomplishments demonstrating PWS capabilities.

5. Any work history that corresponds with Past Performance references.

Key personnel narrative is limited to three (3) pages; resumes are limited to three (3) pages each.

Phase II, Criteria 4 - Oral Presentation - Proposed Solution

The Quoter’s oral presentation shall provide the Government an understanding of the Quoter’s proposed project approach, plan and methods to be used for the successful preparation, management and execution of the project meetings. The oral presentation shall address the proposed solution, plans and resources necessary to satisfy all PWS requirements.

Oral presentations will be assigned a confidence rating in accordance with Table 1. Oral presentations will be evaluated based on the Quoter’s presentation of its proposed OIP Portal Solution in oral presentation portion 2, as well as the interactive dialogue in oral presentation portion 4 related to its proposed logistical support solution. The Quoter’s team dynamics during the oral presentation portion 2 and 4 may also be evaluated. The optional slides for the oral presentation will not be evaluated.

Phase II Criteria 5- Price

The Government will establish a “total evaluated” price based on a completed Attachment A. – A separate Volume for Price Schedule to include, Labor Hours and Proposed Price tabs. The Government expects to receive price competition through several offers. The “total evaluated price” will be evaluated for price reasonableness through comparison with other proposed prices and may include other price analysis techniques. The Government will evaluate the alignment of the proposed pricing to the Quoter’s proposed technical and management. Price that does not align to the Quoter’s proposed technical and management approach may indicate an inability to understand the requirements and therefore may be considered a high-risk approach to contract performance. The price proposal will not be given a confidence rating but discounts and rates will be evaluated to ensure labor categories and rates are fair and reasonable.