B09_Amendment_02_What_Evaluators_Will_Ask_for_Each_Factor_2_0002.pdf

What Evaluators Will Ask for Factor 1 – Technical Approach When reviewing proposals for Factor 1, evaluators will answer quesƟons such as:

1. Visitor Center Ceiling (Historic Element)

• Does the proposal clearly describe the technical approach to removing, cataloging, and reinstalling the historic ceiling?

• Is the process for integraƟng new elements thoughƞul and well-coordinated?

2. Server RelocaƟon Strategy

• Does the proposal explain a phasing approach for relocaƟng servers?

• Will Park operaƟons and network connecƟons be maintained during construcƟon?

3. Winter Work Sequencing

• Does the proposal address how outdoor work will be sequenced during winter months in Grand County, Colorado?

• Is there a plan for coordinaƟng temporary faciliƟes (offices and visitor center) to maximize the period of performance?

4. Risk Analysis

• Has the contractor idenƟfied criƟcal issues, potenƟal problems, and areas of concern?

• Are recommended soluƟons and strategies provided for managing risks such as weather, unforeseen site condiƟons, material lead Ɵmes, and workforce availability?

5. Overall Approach

• Is the technical approach realisƟc, appropriate, and efficient?

• Does it comply with contract requirements and demonstrate logical sequencing and scope understanding?

• Does the approach present a lower level of risk?

AdministraƟve reminder: The Technical Approach narraƟve is limited to 7 pages; addiƟonal pages will not be evaluated. Pictures count toward the page limit.

What Evaluators Will Ask for Factor 2 – Key Personnel Experience When reviewing proposals for Factor 2, evaluators will answer quesƟons such as:

1. Key Personnel IdenƟficaƟon & QualificaƟons

• Are resumes provided for all required roles (Project Manager, Superintendent, On-site Quality Control Specialist, On-site Safety Specialist, Historic PreservaƟon Treatment Specialist)?

• Are all personnel proposed in accordance with SecƟon H and subsƟtuƟon requirements?

2. Relevant Project Experience

• Does the narraƟve clearly idenƟfy each Key Personnel’s experience on the projects submiƩed in the Project Experience factor?

• Are their roles on those projects explicitly stated?

• Is addiƟonal relevant project experience described?

3. References

• Are references (name, phone, and/or email) provided for each Key Personnel?

4. Capability & Technical Knowledge

• Does each Key Personnel demonstrate capability in the same or similar posiƟons on successful, relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude?

• Do they possess the technical knowledge and skills required for this solicitaƟon?

5. Problem Solving & CommunicaƟon

• Is there evidence of effecƟve problem solving, communicaƟon, coordinaƟon, and organizaƟon?

6. ConstrucƟon Experience with Federal/State Requirements

• Does the Key Personnel have construcƟon experience implemenƟng Federal or State published project management requirements (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers, NaƟonal Park Service, US Forest Service)?

7. Overall Risk

• Does the Key Personnel’s experience present a lower level of risk for successful project delivery?

What Evaluators Will Ask for Factor 3 – Project Experience When reviewing proposals for Factor 3, evaluators will answer quesƟons such as:

1. Relevant Project Experience

• Has the contractor submiƩed up to 4 relevant projects completed in the last 7 years, using the required Project Experience Form?

• Are the projects similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to this solicitaƟon?

2. Prime Contractor RehabilitaƟon Experience

• Does the contractor have experience renovaƟng historic buildings of similar size and use (administraƟve and public)?

• Is there evidence of technical knowledge and skills required for this solicitaƟon?

• If the contractor lacks this experience, is it explicitly stated?

3. Carpentry Key Subcontractor RehabilitaƟon Experience

• Does the carpentry contractor (or the prime, if self-performing) have experience renovaƟng historic buildings of similar size and use?

• Is there demonstrated experience with construcƟon projects similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity, including technical skills such as window and door replacements?

• If the prime contractor is self-performing, is this clearly stated?

4. Experience in Remote LocaƟons

• Does the contractor have experience with projects in remote locaƟons?

• If not, is this explicitly stated?

5. Technical Knowledge & Skill

• Does the project experience demonstrate the technical knowledge and skill needed to meet or exceed the requirements for this solicitaƟon?

6. Management & Problem Solving

• Is there evidence of effecƟve management, problem solving, communicaƟon, coordinaƟon, and organizaƟon?

7. Weight for NPS Projects

• Are any of the relevant projects completed for the NaƟonal Park Service? (These will be given more weight.)

8. Overall Risk

• Does the contractor’s project experience present a lower level of risk for successful project delivery?

What Evaluators Will Ask for Factor 4 – Management Approach & Project Team When reviewing proposals for Factor 4, evaluators will answer quesƟons such as:

1. OrganizaƟonal Chart

• Is an organizaƟonal chart provided that clearly idenƟfies the project team, major subcontractors, and key personnel?

• Are specific roles, responsibiliƟes, and lines of authority shown?

2. Management PracƟces

• Does the narraƟve describe sound management pracƟces and business processes?

• Is there evidence of effecƟve cost and quality control?

3. Capacity & Resources

• Does the firm demonstrate capabiliƟes and assets available for this project?

• Is there clear capacity to perform this work concurrently with ongoing projects?

• Are resources and equipment to be used for this project described?

4. Project Team CoordinaƟon & Experience

• Is prior project experience working with the proposed team (Key Personnel and Key Trade Subcontractors) described?

• If no prior experience with subcontractors, is this explicitly stated?

• Does the proposal explain how the project team will enhance coordinaƟon and ensure a successful outcome?

• Are all required Key Trade Subcontractors (carpentry, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, concrete) included?

5. LeƩer of Commitment

• Is a signed leƩer of commitment from each Key Trade Subcontractor included, indicaƟng their role, resources, and intent to enter into a subcontract?

6. Team Structure & CommunicaƟon

• Does the management approach demonstrate clear corporate and project team commitment, hierarchy, lines of communicaƟon, roles, responsibiliƟes, and relaƟonships?

7. Subcontractor SelecƟon

• Apart from the required Key Trade Subcontractors, are subcontractors selected for the remainder of the

Divisions of work? (Teams with more complete selecƟon will be more favorably rated.)

8. Overall Risk

• Does the management approach and project team present a lower level of risk for successful project delivery?

AdministraƟve reminder: The Management Approach & Project Team narraƟve is limited to 5 pages; addiƟonal pages will not be evaluated. Pictures count toward the page limit.

What Evaluators Will Ask for Factor 5 – Schedule When reviewing proposals for Factor 5, evaluators will answer quesƟons such as:

1. ConstrucƟon Schedule

• Does the proposed construcƟon schedule show compleƟon no later than May 1, 2028?

• Is the schedule based on a NoƟce to Proceed date of November 1, 2026?

2. Baseline Schedule Review Checklist

• Is the schedule in accordance with the Baseline Schedule Review Checklist included in SecƟon J?

3. Schedule NarraƟve

• Does the narraƟve explain the schedule logic and idenƟfy criƟcal path acƟviƟes?

• Are procurement lead-Ɵmes, subcontractor/trade coordinaƟon, on-site storage and staging, resource and

Ɵme constraints accounted for?

4. CriƟcal Path & Sequencing

• Does the schedule document a clear criƟcal path and logical sequencing of acƟviƟes?

5. Risk MiƟgaƟon

• Does the schedule and narraƟve demonstrate risk miƟgaƟon strategies to ensure successful compleƟon within the required period of performance?

6. Overall Risk

• Does the schedule present a lower level of risk for Ɵmely and successful project delivery?

What Evaluators Will Ask for Factor 6 – Small Business ParƟcipaƟon When reviewing proposals for Factor 6, evaluators will answer quesƟons such as:

1. IdenƟficaƟon of Small Business Firms

• Are U.S. small business firms (as defined in FAR Part 19) specifically idenƟfied in the proposal?

2. SubstanƟve Commitment

• Does the proposal demonstrate substanƟve commitment to small business firms (e.g., leƩers of commitment, joint ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other binding commitments)?

3. Type and Variety of Work

• Is the type and variety of work to be performed by small business firms clearly idenƟfied?

4. ParƟcipaƟon Value

• What is the extent of parƟcipaƟon of small business prime Offerors and small business Subcontractors in terms of the total contract value?

5. SupporƟng DocumentaƟon

• Does the Offeror provide detailed explanaƟons and documentaƟon supporƟng the proposed quanƟtaƟve parƟcipaƟon?

6. Compliance with FAR Requirements

• Has the Offeror complied with FAR 52.219-8, UƟlizaƟon of Small Business Concerns?

• Has the Offeror complied with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business SubcontracƟng Plan (when applicable)?

7. Best Value

• Does the proposal represent the best value in terms of Small Business ParƟcipaƟon?

8. Small Business Prime Offerors

• If the Offeror is a small business prime, will they receive maximum credit for this evaluaƟon factor (and do they need to submit supporƟng documentaƟon)?

Small business prime offerors receive maximum credit for this factor and do not need to submit supporƟng documentaƟon; other-than-small offerors must submit documentaƟon addressing SecƟon M criteria.

What Evaluators Will Ask for Factor 7 – Past Performance When reviewing proposals for Factor 7, evaluators will answer quesƟons such as:

1. Past Performance InformaƟon

• Has the offeror submiƩed Past Performance informaƟon for the same projects listed under Project Experience (Factor 3), using the required Past Performance QuesƟonnaire or a PPIRS evaluaƟon report?

• Is past performance informaƟon provided for both the offeror’s firm and proposed subcontractors performing key trades and construcƟon acƟviƟes (only if relevant to the work they will perform)?

2. QuesƟonnaire SubmiƩal Process

• Did the offeror complete SecƟons A and B of the Past Performance QuesƟonnaire and forward it to a client reference who was substanƟally involved with the project?

• Did the offeror submit copies of the quesƟonnaire sent to references, including their point of contact informaƟon?

3. NarraƟve Disclosure

• Has the offeror submiƩed a narraƟve disclosing any instances of past performance that may be considered less than fully saƟsfactory?

• Are perƟnent facts, circumstances, and remedial acƟons described for any deficiencies?

4. Relevancy and Quality

• Does the past performance demonstrate higher levels of success and quality on projects similar in scope and magnitude to this solicitaƟon?

• Are projects more relevant to the requirements of this solicitaƟon given more weight in the overall past performance raƟng?

• Are Project Experience raƟngs (Factor 3) considered in determining relevancy?

5. Federal, Public, and Private Contracts

• Is past performance on contracts with the Federal Government, other public agencies, or private organizaƟons considered?

6. No Relevant Past Performance

• If the offeror has no past performance on similar work relevant to this solicitaƟon, will they be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably?

7. ClarificaƟon and Adverse InformaƟon

• Will exchanges occur between the Government and offerors to clarify the relevance of past performance informaƟon or address adverse past performance informaƟon not yet responded to?

8. Overall Risk

• Does the past performance present a lower level of risk for successful project delivery?

The Government may use sources other than submiƩed references and may not contact all references during evaluaƟon.