SECTION 00 22 16

PHASE 2 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

INDEX

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

2. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

3. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

4. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

5. TECHNICAL RATING TECHNICAL RATING

6. EVALUATION FACTORS

6.1. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 4 – TECHNICAL APPROACH TO THE SAMPLE PROJECT

6.1.1. Evaluation Criteria

6.2. VOLUME II, FACTOR 5 –PRICE FOR THE SAMPLE PROJECT (TO INCLUDE SECTION

00 10 00)

6.2.1. Evaluation Criteria

SECTION 00 22 16

PHASE 2 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

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

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 are listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 4: Technical Approach to the Sample Project (Phase 2) Factor 5: Price for the Sample Project (to include Section 00 10 00) (Phase 2)

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

3. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

Refer to Paragraph 1 of Section 00 21 16 PHASE 2 OF 2 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS, Proposal Format and Submission Requirements.

4. DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.506 and DFARS 215.506 Postaward Debriefing of Offerors provided the Offeror has not already received a debriefing for this solicitation.

5. TECHNICAL RATING TECHNICAL RATING

The evaluation rating for Phase 2 – Factor 4 Technical Approach to the Sample Project will be on an adjectival basis in conjunction with a narrative composed of the discussion of the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. 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 1 below.

Table 1: 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.

6. EVALUATION FACTORS

6.1. VOLUME 1, FACTOR 4 – TECHNICAL APPROACH TO THE SAMPLE

PROJECT

6.1.1. Evaluation Criteria

Strengths or Significant Strengths may be given for the following criteria:

• Offeror presents a technical approach that demonstrates an exceptional understanding of safety considerations and exceptional analysis of the significant risks associated with the technical approach along with a plan on how the Offeror intends to manage and/or mitigate those risks.

• Offeror presents an exceptional narrative that demonstrates how the Offeror plans to execute the design-build projects and how they would coordinate design and construction efforts, to include design quality role, and the role of the Government in design-build projects.

• Any other aspect of the technical approach which the government believes demonstrate an exceptional understanding of the sample project requirements, as described in Attachment 00 21 16 A.

• 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 sample project.

Weaknesses or Significant Weakness may be given for the following criteria:

• Presents a project schedule that contains errors including, but not limited to, the omission of key activities, and flawed schedule logic of dates and/or durations.

• Omissions or incompleteness of any requested information that is not considered a deficiency.

• Aspects of the Technical Approach that are unclear or conflict with the requirements of Attachment 00 21 16 A and are not considered 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 shall be given for each of the following criteria:

• Identification of a Designer/A-E with limited technical capabilities.

• Failure to address the Designer(s)/A-E capabilities.

• Failure to include a project schedule.

• 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.

6.2. VOLUME II, FACTOR 5 –PRICE FOR THE SAMPLE PROJECT (to include Section 00 10 00)

6.2.1. Evaluation Criteria

a. The total evaluated price will be the firm-fixed price proposed by the Offeror for the Sample

Project (refer to Section 00 21 16, Attachment 00 21 16 A).

b. The total evaluated price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price and analysis of the maximum binding rates will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). Cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(c) may also be used to evaluate data other than certified cost or pricing data to determine cost reasonableness when a fair and reasonable price cannot be determined through price analysis alone. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether the price and rates proposed by the Offeror are reasonable.

c. Award will not be made to Offerors who do not provide reasonable fully burdened rates for each the labor disciplines listed in Section 00 10 00 Table 1 (NOTE: The unburdened labor rates are for informational purposes only and are only used to assess the overall reasonableness of the fully burdened labor rates), Binding Maximum Indirect Rates listed in Section 00 10 00 Table 2 and/or a reasonable price for the Sample Project. Because the evaluation of the price proposal will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible that an Offeror may not be selected because of an unreasonable price proposal.