00 22 00_Phase1_12June26.pdf

SECTION 00 22 00

PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

INDEX

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

2. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

3. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

3.1. SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR PHASE 1

4. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

5. TECHNICAL RATING

6. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

7. DEFINITIONS

8. TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

8.1. VOLUME 1, TAB 1 – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.1.1. Evaluation Criteria

8.2. VOLUME 1, TAB 2 - FACTOR 2 – OVERALL PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL APPROACH

8.2.1. Evaluation Criteria

8.3. VOLUME I, TAB 3 - FACTOR 3 – RESUMES OF CORPORATE PERSONNEL

8.3.1. Evaluation Criteria

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The agency will use Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures authorized by FAR 36.301.

The Phase 1 selection will be based on evaluation of technical factors and past performance.

There are three non-price factors in Phase 1: Factor 1 – Past Performance, Factor 2 –Overall Program Management/Technical Approach, and Factor 3 – Resumes of Corporate Personnel.

Price will not be considered during Phase 1. Only those Offerors who submitted the most highly rated proposals in Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2, and they will be the only Offerors eligible to compete in Phase 2.

In Phase 2, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions with Offerors. However, in the event the Source Selection Authority (SSA)/Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) concludes conducting discussions is in the best interest of the Government, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range. 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.

Discussions will include issuance of evaluation notices. An Offeror initially included in the competitive range may be eliminated from consideration for award during discussions.

Therefore, the Offerors initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

A sample project will be used to meet price competition requirements for this SB Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) in Phase 2.

2. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors 1 and 2 are equal in importance. Evaluation Factors 3-5 are listed below in descending order of importance.

FACTOR, VOLUME I (Phase 1) Factor 1 Past Performance Factor 2 Overall Program Management/Technical Approach Factor 3 Resumes of Corporate Personnel

FACTOR, VOLUME II (Phase 2) – Do NOT submit with Phase 1 Factor 4 Technical Approach to the Sample Project Factor 5 Price Proposal for Sample Project (to include Section 00 10 00)

Proposals will be evaluated using the Best Value-Tradeoff process as identified in FAR 15.101-

1. All Evaluation Factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

3. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

The Government will evaluate all responsive offers received in response to this solicitation in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, the DoD Source Selection procedures, and the Army Source Selection Supplement. The principal objective of this process is to select responsible Offerors who submit the offers that are the Best Value to the Government.

3.1. SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR PHASE 1

In Phase 1 of the Two-Phase selection process, Offerors submit performance capability proposals that demonstrate their ability to successfully execute task orders under a contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the qualifications submitted in Phase 1 and will invite a maximum of ten (10) of the most highly qualified Offerors to compete in Phase 2.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

The evaluation rating for Phase 1 – Factor 1, Past Performance, results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. It is a holistic view of the offeror’s history with respect to the present acquisition.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

• The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The Government will consider projects that are completed within seven (7) years from the original date that offers are due. Projects whose completion date is closer to the date the offers are due will have more impact on the overall past performance evaluation.

However, they may or may not overshadow older performance records considering the nature of the ratings, statements, and volume of records.

• The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by this RFP. In determining the relevancy of each submitted project, the Government will consider contracts or task orders which are similar to the work described in Section 01 11 00.

• The third aspect of the past performance evaluation, quality, is to determine how well the offeror performed on its past performance projects.

A Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be given for this factor based on the assessment of recent and relevant past performance information and the assessment of the quality of past performance on prior contract efforts. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using Table 1: Performance Confidence Assessment below.

Table 1: Performance Confidence Assessment

Adjectival 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.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable; it is considered neutral.

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance although the SSA may determine, that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating brings more value than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in the best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

5. TECHNICAL RATING

The evaluation rating for Phase 1 – Factor 2 Overall Program Management/Technical Approach will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the particular strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The SSEB will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

The evaluation rating for Phase 1 – Factor 3 Resumes of Key Personnel will be on a technical acceptable/unacceptable rating system. The SSEB will use a technical acceptable/unacceptable rating system to evaluate Phase 1 – Factor 3 of the offeror’s proposal against the stated submission requirements of Section 00 21 00, paragraph 6.1.3.1 to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable utilize the technical acceptable/unacceptable rating method listed in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

6. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors or FAR 15.506 and DFARS 215.506 Post-award Debriefing of Offerors.

7. DEFINITIONS

Strength: an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength: an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness: a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

8. TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

8.1. VOLUME 1, TAB 1 – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

8.1.1. Evaluation Criteria

The Government’s evaluation of past performance will examine how well Offerors have performed on past projects.

CPARS Ratings will be given more weight than PPQs. The Government may, at its discretion, contact individuals other than those identified by the Offeror as references to verify the information contained therein. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history but may attribute more importance to work that was similar to the scope and types of projects as stated in Paragraph 1.2 in Section 01 11 00.

In the event an Offeror does not provide CPARS or PPQ ratings for its five (5) past projects, and there is no record of other relevant past projects in CPARS, the offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating.

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine, that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating brings more value than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in the best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality, which, considered together, are used to determine an overall confidence rating. These are described below.

a. Recency

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Recency is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance occurred.

The Government will consider projects that are complete within 7 years from the date the offers are due. Projects whose completion date is closer to the original date the offers are due will have more impact on the overall past performance evaluation. However, they may or may not overshadow older performance records considering the nature of the ratings, statements, and volume of records.

b. Relevancy

The Government will consider the experience provided in the example projects when determining the relevancy of past performance data and use those submissions as a part of the confidence assessment. The relevancy of the past performance is measured against the scope of work expected to be completed in the resulting contract(s) as identified in Section 01 11 00. A lack of, or degraded recency and relevancy impacts the confidence assessment that the Government provides.

Projects submitted without qualifying past performance data to support them may be considered for relevancy; however, the lack of qualifying performance data may have a significant negative impact on the confidence assessment.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the following table.

Past Performance Relevancy Levels

Levels Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

In determining the relevancy of each submitted project, the Government will consider the following:

• The extent to which the submitted project(s) meet or exceed a minimum contract/task order final dollar value of $3,000,000, one (1) project at least $8,000,000, and one (1) project at least $15,000,000. “Final dollar value” means the amount of costs the Customer reimbursed the Offeror plus any associated fees and monetary incentives for the contract/task order. For task orders, the “final dollar value” amount is the award amount of the task order, not the parent contract.

• The extent to which the submitted project(s) demonstrate how the Offeror actively participated in the design and construction aspects in each design-build project example submitted.

• The extent to which the submitted project(s) demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to perform both Military and Civil projects. However, Military projects of equivalent scope, magnitude, and complexity will be considered more relevant.

• The extent to which the submitted project(s) demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to perform complex facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization activities. A complex project may include a combination of any of the following:

o a project example that consists of five (5) or more disciplines/trades;

o a project that consists of new minor construction or restoring or modernizing two or more large structures;

o provides demolition, environmental remediation (asbestos/lead removal and/or abatement) and disposal services within a project.

• The similarities of projects to those described in the Scope of Work, Section 01

11 00, including, but not limited to: complexity, nature of work, work elements, schedule duration, and scope.

• The extent to which the submitted project(s) demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to successfully perform work similar to the scope of work, Section 01 11 00, in South Dakota and/or North Dakota.

• While the offeror may use projects executed by its first-tier small business subcontractor(s) under this offer, the relevancy of the projects executed by the first-tier small business subcontractor(s) is less than the projects completed by the offeror.

c. Quality

This is an assessment of the quality of the contractor’s performance, which may include, but is not limited to: comparison of past experience to requirements contemplated under this scope; performance evaluation ratings; responsiveness to customer concerns; cost growth and adherence to budget; time growth, timeliness and adherence to schedule;

quality and quality control measures; management of personnel and subcontractors;

compliance with safety standards/safety plan; regulatory compliance; overall customer satisfaction. The offeror can use past performance of its first-tier small business subcontractor(s) under this solicitation, but it is more difficult to assess whether the quality shown by the first-tier small business subcontractor(s) will translate to the anticipated projects under the MATOC. Therefore, the quality assessment of the offeror, if they performed the work, may be higher.

8.2. VOLUME 1, TAB 2 - FACTOR 2 – OVERALL PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL APPROACH

8.2.1. Evaluation Criteria

The Offeror’s overall program management approach and organization described in Section 00 21 00 and in accordance with Division 01- General Requirements of this solicitation will be evaluated.

Strengths or Significant Strengths may be given for proposals which demonstrate the following:

• A thorough explanation of how the Offeror will implement the US Army Corps of Engineers’ three (3) phases of quality control.

• A well-conceived, detailed health and safety program, in accordance with EM 385-1-1, specifically focused on the health and safety dangers inherent to the types of work which may be performed under this contract.

• An overall staffing approach that communicates a clear plan for continuity of staffing that does not place an undue burden on Government personnel during such a transition and a clear plan on how the prime contractor will conduct mobilization of competent and qualified subcontractors to complete work in North Dakota and South Dakota.

• A management approach that demonstrates that the prime contractor or JV has in-house capabilities to perform the anticipated work under this MATOC.

• A quality control organizational structure that thoroughly explains the design components and clearly delineates roles and responsibilities and flows of communications between the Contractor, Designer, and the Government.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weaknesses or Significant Weaknesses may be given for proposals which demonstrate the following:

• An organizational structure that sets forth lines of authority, chains of commands, responsibilities, and communication procedures that are contrary to efficient and effective project management.

• An organizational structure that does not thoroughly explain or clearly identify the roles, responsibilities, and flow of communication both internally and with the Government.

• An overall staffing plan that does not communicates a clear plan for continuity of staffing that does place an undue burden on Government personnel during such a transition and/or does not provide a clear plan by the prime contractor on how mobilization of competent and qualified subcontractors to complete work in North Dakota and South Dakota will be conducted.

• A management approach that does not clearly identify the role(s) of the first-tier small business subcontractor(s) including the previous entities’ relationship and/or the effective and efficient management of the first-tier small business subcontractor(s).

• Identifying a first-tier small business subcontractor(s) that has no discernable role in future projects under this MATOC other than to use the entities’ capabilities to obtain a contract.

• Omission or incompleteness of any requested information listed in Section 00 21 00 Paragraph 6.1.2 that is otherwise not stated as a deficiency.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the evaluators and/or the SSA believe is a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies will be given for each of the following criteria:

• Material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

8.3. VOLUME I, TAB 3 - FACTOR 3 – RESUMES OF CORPORATE PERSONNEL

8.3.1. Evaluation Criteria

The resumes for the proposed Corporate Personnel will be reviewed to verify that they meet the requirements specified in Section 00 21 00, paragraph 6.1.3. Any resumes that do not meet the requirements specified in Section 00 21 00, paragraph 6.1.3, would be deemed unacceptable.