Amendment 2 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

NCNR Construction - Single Award Task Order Contract - $9.5M Evaluation Criteria

A. Source Selection and Acquisition Strategy

This task order is to be awarded to the most highly qualified offeror based on the selection criteria.

The Government will use a technical/price tradeoff process for this source selection. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and provides the best value to the Government.

B. Technical Evaluation

Offerors will be evaluated utilizing the following evaluation criteria. To be eligible for award, offerors must be technically acceptable in all evaluated areas to be considered for award.

Factor 1 – Payment and Performance Bond (Pass/Fail)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's submission of a notarized statement or letter from its surety which must include the following:

1. Individual task order bonding capacity equivalent to the maximum task order dollar amount of $3,000,000.

2. Aggregate bonding capacity of $9,500,000.

3. Statement is an original document notarized with a raised seal or embossed stamp.

4. Power of Attorney letter.

Failure to meet all the requirements of the factor will result in the proposal being determined non-responsive and will not be considered further for award.

Factor 2 – Multidisciplinary Experience

The Government will evaluate relevant example projects for this factor using an

ADJECTIVAL RATING.

Materials submitted shall be evaluated on the relevancy of the experience listed, as well as how the project was completed. Items that will be rated more favorably include;

- projects that involve cryogenic fluids, uninterruptable power systems, routing of cable and raceway within highly congested areas, pressure and fire rated exterior wall penetrations, helium and oxygen deficiency safety systems, work for a reactor facility, or hazardous occupancy

- project that demonstrate more than six of the additional elements listed in item 3 under ‘Multidisciplinary Experience’ in the evaluation criteria section of this solicitation.

- projects completed within the funds allotted at contract award. If extenuating circumstances did not allow for meeting this funding goal, include all relevant information to demonstrate the efforts of the contractor to meet the allotted budget.

- projects completed within the schedule set at contract award. If extenuating circumstances did not allow for meeting schedule goal, include all relevant information to demonstrate the efforts of the contractor to meet the schedule.

Failure to provide documentation that demonstrates Relevant Multidisciplinary Experience as defined above will result in the proposal being determined non-responsive and will not be considered further for award.

Factor 3 – Specialized Experience

The Government will evaluate relevant example projects for this factor using an

ADJECTIVAL RATING.

Materials submitted shall be evaluated on the relevancy of the experience listed, as well as how the project was completed. Items that will be rated more favorably include;

- projects that involve cryogenic fluids, work for a reactor facility, hazardous occupancy

- project that demonstrate more than one of the additional elements listed in item 3b under

‘Specialized Experience’ in the evaluation criteria section of this solicitation.

- projects completed within the funds allotted at contract award. If extenuating circumstances did not allow for meeting this funding goal, include all relevant information to demonstrate the efforts of the contractor to meet the allotted budget.

- projects completed within the schedule set at contract award. If extenuating circumstances did not allow for meeting schedule goal, include all relevant information to demonstrate the efforts of the contractor to meet the schedule.

Failure to provide documentation that demonstrates Relevant Specialized Experience as defined above will result in the proposal being determined non-responsive and will not be considered further for award.

Factor 4 – Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate this factor using an ADJECTIVAL RATING.

The Offeror shall describe its approach to planning, organizing, and executing the Task Order 001 to ensure successful completion. The Offeror's technical approach shall include its method for construction sequencing, work control, meeting specific critical schedule milestones in the task order, purchasing materials, quality assurance and inspection/testing protocols included in both drawings and specification sets. The Offeror shall describe the specific control measures for sustaining critical operation throughout each phase of construction with minimal downtime.

Demonstration of success for measures to ensure quality will be rated more favorably. Reasonable measures to maintain or reduce project schedule will be rated more favorably.

The tasks listed in this requirement represent a current need that may, at time, require an expedited schedule. As such, proposals that are able to demonstrate the technical capability and project management tools to facilitate more than one task order concurrently will be rated more favorably.

Factor 5 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance information to assess the quality, timeliness, and ability to control cost and schedule. Evaluation of this factor will be based on information contained in the technical proposal and information provided by references.

Sub-Factor 5A – General Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance information to assess the references for each project described in the Offeror's experience for Factor 2 and Factor 3. Offerors shall ensure that all contact information, such as telephone and email addresses, is current and correct prior to proposing the references in the proposal submission.

In the event that the Offeror has no relevant past performance it shall include a statement to that effect in its proposal. The government reserves the right to consider data obtained from sources other than those described by the Offeror in its proposal. Offerors shall include information regarding any problems encountered on the projects described above and corrective actions take to resolve those problems.

1. If the projects were competed for the Federal Government, the Offeror shall provide copies of the final Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report.

2. If CPARS is not available, Offeror shall use the attached Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), see attachments. PPQs shall be competed and signed by the customer identified in the relevant project.

3. The Government may also consider other available sources of information when evaluating the Offeror's Past Performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of the Offeror's team members identified in the Offeror's proposal.

Sub-Factor 5B - Experience Modification Rating (EMR)

This factor will be rated on a “Pass/Fail” basis. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's letter submitted from the Nation Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) or its calculating state agency verifying the Offeror's EMR for the most recent rating period only. In the event that the Offeror is ineligible for an EMR, the Offeror shall provide a signed letter from their insurance company. The letter must be signed by an authorized individual from the insurance firm on company letterhead.

C. Price Proposal

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's price proposal. The Offeror must provide an itemized price proposal to perform Task Order 001, Building 235 - Roof Access Improvements. Price will be evaluated on proposals that pass the technical capability factors within the solicitation. The price proposal for the task order will be evaluated to determine price fairness and reasonableness.

D. Adjectival Ratings Where applicable, the Government will evaluate the Technical Proposal using the following adjectival ratings:

Adjective Description

Exceptional Greatly exceeds minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good Exceeds the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist.

Acceptable Meets the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Marginal Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist.

Unacceptable Fails to meet the minimum requirements of the criteria; proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

E. Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Criteria

Relative Order of

Importance

Evaluation Basis Factor

1 Pass/Fail Factor 1: Payment and Performance Bond 2 Adjectival Factor 2: Multidisciplinary Experience 3 Adjectival Factor 3: Specialized Experience 4 Adjectival Factor 4: Technical Approach 5 Adjectival Factor 5A: Past Performance 6 Pass/Fail Factor 5B: Experience Modification Rating

NIST will evaluate the offerors proposals to determine their capability of performing the task.

Factors 1 and 5B will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. NIST will evaluate Factors 2, 3, 4 and 5A, based on the adjectival ratings listed above. Offerors will be ranked based on their ratings of Factors 2, 3, 4, and 5A. An emphasis will be placed on the relative importance of each factor as listed above.

All non-price factors, when combined, are considered of greater importance than price. In the event that the evaluation of non-price factors in multiple proposals are technically equivalent, price will become the determining factor.

The Government reserves the right to evaluate past performance by contacting appropriate references, including NIST references; if applicable. The Government may also consider other information available. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.