Evaluation_Criteria.docx

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1. Award of a single contract shall be made on a competitive basis, using the best value tradeoff process among price and non-price factors described at FAR 15.101-1. The resulting contract is expected to be firm-fixed-price.

1.2. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

1.3. Award of this contract will be made on a competitive best value basis, using tradeoffs among price and non-price factors. Thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the highest technically rated offeror. Past Performance will be evaluated independently from the other non-price evaluation factors using different standards. The evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance.

Factor 1 – Technical Capability Factor 2 – Quality Control Plan Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Price

1.4. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

1.5. The Government will not assume that the offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal.

1.6. After Factors 1 and 2 are rated individually, an overall rating will be assigned to these factors collectively. If Factor 1 or 2 receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable,” the overall rating will also be “Unacceptable.” Proposals that receive a rating of “Marginal” for Factor 1 or 2 will not be considered in the tradeoff process. Only proposals receiving an overall rating of “Acceptable” or higher will be considered for award.

1.7. Factor 3 – Past Performance is assessed for relevance/recency and the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts is evaluated, a single consensus performance confidence rating will be determined for the past performance factor for each offeror.

1.8. Although Factor 4 – Price is the least important factor, it becomes a more important factor in the tradeoff process as the collective non-price factors begin to reach equality in the evaluation.

2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1. Factor 1 – Technical Capability: The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and of the functional and technical tasks to be performed. The offeror shall submit a resume that reflects the offeror's experience required competencies, knowledge, and skills that demonstrate they can support efforts similar in size and scope to each section of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The offeror’s proposal shall state how the proposed technical approach will yield the required results as stated in the Request for Quote required timeframe. The offeror should discuss the methodology and flexibility that will be used in performing the requirements within the timeframe allotted.

The offeror shall have a minimum of two years clinical research experience or be a graduate of a nationally accredits

2.2. Factor 2 – Quality Control Plan (QCP): The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated for the degree to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an adequate plan for compliance with the quality standard established in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). At a minimum, the offeror’s proposal shall include a self-inspection plan, an internal staffing plan, and an outline of the procedures the offeror proposes to use to maintain quality, timeliness, responsiveness, and customer satisfaction.

2.3. Factor 3 - Past Performance: Past performance shall be evaluated on the basis of the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in services that meet the contract’s requirements. The Government will conduct a past performance risk evaluation and confidence assessment of the offeror that will be based on the relevance, recency, and quality of the offeror’s past performance on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity within similar periods of performance.

1. Offerors shall submit a list of three (3) references familiar with the offeror’s performance on relevant contracts within the past three (3) years. It is the offeror’s responsibility to provide valid, current, and verifiable references. References must include the following information:

0. Name of the organization that will be providing the reference

0. Name of the point of contact (POC) familiar with contract performance

0. POC telephone number

0. POC email address

0. Contract number

0. Period of performance

0. Summary of the scope of work performed

1. The Government reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews utilizing the points of contact provided in the offeror’s proposal to determine the quality of the offeror’s contract performance.

1. The Government will review the relevant and recent past performance information to determine the risks associated with an offeror’s probability of successfully performing the required efforts.

1. The Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources. Other sources available to the Government include, but are not limited to, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

1. In the case of an offeror who has no recent/relevant performance record available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “Unknown Confidence” for its past performance evaluation factor.

2.4. Factor 4 – Price: Price will be evaluated separately from non-price and past performance factors. A price analysis will be performed in order to evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed price. The proposed price will be evaluated to ascertain consistency with the level of effort described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

3. EVALUATION RATING STANDARDS

3.1. RATING STANDARDS FOR THE NON-PRICE PROPOSAL (EXCLUDING PAST PERFORMANCE)

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Table

3.2. RATING STANDARDS FOR PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments Table

4. DEFINITIONS

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN OR QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (QASP)

1. PURPOSE.

This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic quality control program to ensure services are performed in accordance with the contract. Specifically, it is the means by which its work complies with the requirement of the contract and to evaluate performance for the contract.

This QASP explains the following:

· What will be monitored?

· How monitoring will take place.

· Who will conduct the monitoring.

· How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.

This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract or performance work statement (PWS). It is the Government’s responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur.

This QASP is a “living document” and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. However, the Government shall coordinate changes with the contractor. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.

FAR 52.246-4 Inspection of Services – Fixed-Price, applies to this effort

1. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives (COTRs) – The COTR is responsible for assisting the COR in technical administration of the contract, and shall assist the COR in assuring proper Government surveillance of the contractor’s performance. The COTR shall provide input and documentation for the COR’s quality assurance file. A COTR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. The contractor shall refer any changes they deem may affect contract price, terms, or conditions to the KO for action.

Assigned COTR/COR: TBD Title: Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives (COTRs) Telephone:

Fax:

Email:

1. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES:

The following employee of the contractor will serve as the Program Manager for this contract.

TBD

1. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

Performance standards define desired services. The Government performs surveillance to determine if the contractor exceeds, meets or does not meet these standards.

The PWS for this contract has been submitted separately. The PWS specifies each performance requirement/objective, performance standards and performance thresholds, as well as surveillance method for each such performance requirement/objective.

The Government shall use the standards set forth in the PWS to determine the contractor’s performance and shall compare the contractor’s performance to the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL).

1. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE.

Various methods exist to monitor performance and each method aligns specifically with each performance requirement/objective. These are more fully detailed in the PWS. The COTR shall use the surveillance methods listed below in the administration of this QASP, which methods are specified for each related performance requirement/objective.

· Direct monitoring of progress and quality of deliverables

· Direct monitoring of overall project

· Review of deliverables by users and other USAMRIID personnel

· Direct monitoring of response time by KO and COR

· Matching of proposed deliverable timelines to IMS

· In-Process Review Meetings (various)

· Review of Monthly Reports (various)

Regardless of the surveillance method, the COR shall always contact the contractor’s task manager or on-site representative when a defect is identified and inform the manager of the specifics of the problem. The COR shall be responsible for monitoring the contractor’s performance in meeting a specific performance standard.

Surveillance results may be used as the basis for actions (to include payment deductions) against the contractor. In such cases, the Inspection of Services clause and the Inspection of Supplies clause in the Contract becomes the basis for the KO’s actions.

1. RATINGS.

Metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and acceptable quality level. A rating scale shall be used to determine a positive, neutral, or negative outcome. The following ratings shall be used:

Example 1:

1. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE.

a. ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE.

The Government shall document positive performance. A report template is attached. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for fixed fee payments, award fee payments, or other actions.

b. UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE.

When unacceptable performance occurs, the COTR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case, the COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR’s file.

When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COTR shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to the contractor’s task manager or on-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP.

The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CDR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the COTR. The Government shall review the contractor 's corrective action plan to determine acceptability.

Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, or other actions deemed necessary by the KO.

1. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT.

a. Frequency of Measurement.

During contract/order performance, the COTR shall take periodic measurements on a quarterly basis.

b. Frequency of Performance Assessment Meetings.

The COTR shall meet with the contractor quarterly (which shall coincide with the IPR Meetings as set forth in the PWS) to assess performance and shall provide a written assessment.

Normal Distribution of Deliverables: Unless otherwise specified, normal distribution of deliverables shall be as identified in Points of Contact and this Deliverable Schedule.

Quality Control Plan (QCP)

PWS 2.8.3.2.

Meeting Agenda:

PWS 4.2.

Monthly Status Report:

PWS 4.3.

Milestone Schedule:

PWS 4.4.

Instructional Media Design Package

PWS 2.2.1.

Test Packages

PWS 2.2.4.

Validation Plan

PWS 2.5.2.

Validation Report

PWS 2.5.3.

PERFORMANCE REPORT

1. Contract Number:

2. Prepared by: COTR/COR TDB

3. Date and time of observation:

4. Observation:

Examples of items to include in a report are:

- Method of surveillance.

- How frequently you conducted surveillance.

- Surveillance results.

- Number of observations.

(End of provision)