WOCC ICI Evaluation Criteria.pdf

RFP A031595

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Basis for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is for USAWOCC Institution Contract Instructors at Fort Novosel, AL is set aside for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns.

A. Source Selection Methodology: This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, and DFARS 215.3 in which competing Offeror’s combined past performance information will be approximately equal to price. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another Offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Any proposal with an unacceptable Technical rating will not receive further evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all RFP requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

B. Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate the proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 – Technical Proposal (Volume I) Factor 2 – Past Performance Proposal (Volume II) Factor 3 – Price Proposal (Volume III)

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. Volume I, Factor 1 - Technical Factor

Technical Acceptability Factor.

The Contractor's technical factor will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed approach demonstrates clear knowledge and thorough understanding of the PWS and the nature and scope of the work specified therein.

Technical submissions that simply reiterate the PWS requirements; or are considered incomplete, unreasonable or unrealistic, may reflect a lack of understanding of the requirements and may be assigned a rating of "unacceptable".

The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. Each sub-factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any sub-factor that receives unacceptable rating will result in an overall unacceptable rating in the evaluation for the technical factor and are not eligible for award. The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Detailed preparation instructions are included in Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the PWS and RFP. Proposal contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses, and any identified weaknesses do not impact the probability of meeting minimum requirements. The degree of proposal risk is low to moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the PWS and RFP. The proposal contains significant weaknesses and deficiencies that cannot be corrected without a major rewrite of the proposal. The degree of proposal risk is high to very high.

Note: A final rating of Unacceptable is ineligible for award.

Technical Proposal. Evaluation of the Technical Capability evaluation factor provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. To receive an acceptable rating for Technical Capability the offer must receive an acceptable rating for each subfactor identified below.

(a) Subfactor 1.A: Staffing. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s specific resources that will be used to satisfy the PWS requirements. The Offeror shall provide the following information:

Element 1.A.1 – Qualification of Personnel Proposed.

Element 1.A.2 – Plan to Backfill or Replace Personnel as needed.

Element 1.A.3 – Status of Security Clearances for Personnel Proposed Element 1.A.4 – Number of FTEs Proposed.

The Offeror shall describe project management approach, methodology, plan, organization and process for the development and implementation of the USAWOCC Institution Contract Instructors; address the approach for providing accurate and timely schedule and performance information throughout the life cycle of the project; and provide a detailed strategy and solution to provide a state of the art solutions.

(b) Subfactor 1.B: Project Management. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed staffing approach to ensure adequacy and sufficiency of the labor hours and skill mix for performing PWS requirements. The Offeror shall provide a Management Plan that describes its approach/process to ensure the employment of qualified personnel as necessary for functional continuity. The Offeror shall provide the following information:

Element 1.B.1 – Management Plan for Deliverables and Quality Control.

Element 1.B.2 – Communication Plan.

The Management Plan will be evaluated based on the following:

An assessment of the Offeror’s staffing plan to determine if the Offeror has adequately justified/explained, both quantitatively and qualitatively, how the proposed staffing plan was derived and how the staffing plan will be successful in the performance of contract requirements. The evaluation will include an assessment of the labor/manpower mix to ensure that it provides adequate staffing to support the work required in the PWS.

An assessment of whether the Offeror’s staffing plan adequately describes the measures and procedures that will be in place to ensure personnel retention, emphasizing how the Offeror will recruit, retain, and replenish sufficient and qualified personnel throughout the contract period. To determine exactly how the Offeror will respond to attrition and/or separation so as to minimize any impact to contract performance. To determine whether the Offeror’s proposed management and organization structure illustrates clear lines of communication, authority, and relationship between corporate and on site management.

An assessment of whether the Offeror has identified any subcontracting efforts and has complied with FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting.

An assessment of the Offeror’s proposed key personnel’s resumes content inclusion of job description, education, experience, certifications, and qualifications that meet or exceed the PWS requirements and whether the Offeror provided commitment letters for all proposed key personnel.

Quality Control Plan (QCP). This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s QCP. The Offeror shall provide the following information:

Description detailing the specific surveillance techniques to be employed for all Contract services, ensuring that all tasks listed in the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) will be inspected.

Explanation of how the inspection system will specify areas to be inspected on either a scheduled or non-scheduled basis, and how often inspections will be accomplished.

Methodology of identifying deficiencies in the quality of services performed before the level of performance becomes unacceptable.

Methodology of maintaining records of all quality control inspections and the corrective actions taken.

Procedures for maintaining these records in the event of automation system failure.

Sample inspection form(s) to be used by Quality Control personnel.

The QCP will be evaluated based on the following:

An assessment of whether the Offeror’s description of the surveillance techniques and inspection system adequately describe the measures and procedures that will be in place to manage quality of work and ensure that services are performed in accordance with the PWS.

An assessment of whether the description of the methods to be used for identifying and preventing defects in the quality of services performed include specifics as to areas to be inspected on a scheduled and unscheduled basis, frequency of inspections, and the title and organizational placement of the Contractor’s inspectors.

The technical volume shall not exceed 40 pages (All documents). A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the Offeror.

B. Volume II, Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor

Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on (i) the references provided by the Offeror (Attachment 1), (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Attachment 2), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government (e.g., the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)). If a reference identified by the Offeror in accordance with Section L does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(A) Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, somewhat relevant, relevant, and very relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets basic contract PWS requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the Offeror’s adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

(B) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

(C) Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this RFP. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same nature, size, scope and complexity to the effort this RFP requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must meet the following criteria:

Performance duration must be two (2) or more years.

Performance must be in the Department of Defense or federal agency

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved a similar nature, size, scope and complexity to the effort this RFP requires. To qualify, the performance may fail to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” but meets all of the following:

Performance duration must be one (1) or more years.

Performance must be in an organization similar to the Department of

Defense or federal agency

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the nature, size, scope and complexity to the effort this RFP requires. To qualify, the performance may fail to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” or “Relevant” but meets all of the following:

Performance duration must be one (1) or more years.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the nature, size, scope and complexity to the effort this RFP requires. To qualify, all performance fails to meet one of the three relevancy ratings: “Very Relevant”, “Relevant” or “Somewhat Relevant.”

(D) Sources. The Government may seek relevant performance information from the Offeror in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the Offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation may take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company, or joint ventures of the parent company, when:

(1) The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

(2) When the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed effort.

(E) Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance meets the PWS and technical requirements of previous efforts, the assessment may consider things such as: the Offeror’s history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

When a relevant and recent performance record indicates performance problems, the Government may consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

(F) Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to meet the RFP requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the Offeror to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as described below in Table 4.

Table 4. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Rating Description Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is 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 the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: A final rating of “No Confidence” is ineligible for award.

C. Volume III, Factor 3 - Price Evaluation Factor. The Government will rank all offers determined to be technically acceptable by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

(A) Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer. The Offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of Base Year and four option year periods plus evaluation of the option to extend services under FAR clause 52.217-8 (see section B below for calculation).

(B) Evaluating the Option CLIN do not obligate the Government to exercise the Option. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6-months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base year and option year will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services. No pricing is requested and will not be evaluated if submitted for the 6-month period referenced in FAR clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. The Government will evaluate its option to extend services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 by adding six (6) months of the Offeror’s final option period price to the Offeror’s total price.

(C) In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(D) Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness; therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). However, if at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, Offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the contracting officer to determine price reasonableness.

E. Price Performance Trade-off. All offers will be evaluated for Technically Acceptability. Offers determined to be Technically Unacceptable will be eliminated from consideration. The Government will then proceed to conduct the Past Performance Evaluation on all offers determined to be Technically Acceptable. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated assessment, best value award decision.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Section)