REVISED_Section_M_Evaluation_P5523R0003_0001.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD – PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1 will be the primary means of assessing proposal reasonableness. The Government intends to award a contract without discussion with respective offerors to the most suitable contractor in accordance with the evaluation process described herein, however, the contracting officer reserves the right to establish a competitive range and open discussions with offerors if it is deemed necessary. The Government's technical evaluation committee will evaluate the proposals submitted against the following evaluation criteria:

FACTOR A - TECHNICAL APPROACH

Evaluation of this factor will be based on the offeror's description of their technical approach to the project. Offerors are encouraged to provide detailed specific information. Failure to provide sufficient information so that the evaluation team cannot discern if the offeror has a thorough understanding of the work in question may lead to the proposal receiving a lower rating. Information provided in the Technical Proposal should be relevant to the Statement of Work. The Government will evaluate the offeror's means and methods to accomplish the construction project, including selection of subcontractor(s) and their role in the project. Estimated time of completion will also be considered.

FACTOR B - PAST PERFORMANCE, EXPERIENCE, AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

This criterion will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance based on feedback from previous clients through past performance questionnaires, Attachment 005. The recency and relevancy of the contractor’s past performance will be considered. The Offeror, via previous clients, shall supply at least three past performance questionnaires for projects that are of same or similar scope and complexity as the contemplated contract and have been completed within the five years from the issuance of this solicitation. If the offeror submits more than three past performance questionnaires, the

Government will only review and consider the first three questionnaires submitted to the Contracting Officer. The

Government may also use past performance information gathered from other sources in its evaluation. Offerors shall have an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. 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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. However, the Government may assign a higher confidence to those proposals which present a record of relevant past performance.

The contracting officer will not accept questionnaires that are not sent directly to the contracting officer’s email address provided on the questionnaire.

FACTOR C - COST PROPOSAL

Evaluation of this factor will be based on the reasonableness of the detailed cost proposal. Cost will be evaluated for reasonableness through a comprehensive comparison of each proposal received. Reasonableness will be determined based on costs submitted by the competition, current market conditions, and comparison to the Government estimate. Offerors must provide a cost breakout to include all costs associated with their proposal.

Each proposal shall be evaluated to ensure that all information provided in the RFP has been addressed, is accurate and complete, and each individual cost category under each division is properly identified (e.g., design, general requirements, concrete, masonry, mechanical, electrical, site work, etc.). Offerors shall identify the subtotal cost for each standard construction division, and the aggregate total cost for each portion/phase of the overall project. The proposed costs will also be evaluated using the cost techniques listed at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1 (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(v), and

(b)(2)(vi). The offeror's total cost shall be identified by divisions as shown in the project specifications/RFP schedule.

RELATIVE WEIGHT OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

All evaluation factors other than cost, when combined, are "significantly more important" than cost. All non-cost factors will be combined and evaluated as an overall technical proposal rating. Thereafter, cost will be considered after each technical proposal has been evaluated and scored. The best value will be determined by comparing differences in the value of non-cost features with differences in cost to the Government. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior non-cost features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government.

However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to achieve slightly superior non-cost features. Therefore, cost is not expected to be the controlling factor in the selection of an Offeror, but the degree of importance of cost as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for other factors evaluated.

When competing proposals are determined to be substantially equal after evaluation of all non-cost factors, the cost could become the controlling factor.

EVALUATION STANDARDS

Rating: The application of a scale of words, colors, or numbers, used in conjunction with narrative, to denote the degree to which the proposal has met the standard for a non-cost factor. For purposes of this solicitation, ratings will consist of words in conjunction with a narrative. Ratings will be applied at the factor level.

The following ratings will be used to evaluate Factor A (Technical Approach)

Technical Rating: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal or Unsatisfactory

Technical

Rating

Definition/Standard Proposal

Risk

Exceptional

RATING: Proposal is

(1) complete and comprehensive;

(2) exceeds required performance and capabilities in a way very beneficial to the government; (3) contains no noted deficiencies; (4) demonstrates a full understanding of all aspects of the requirements;

(5) provides very high expectation for timely completion and outstanding quality.

RISK:

(1) No proposal weaknesses have potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in price, or degradation of performance.

(2) Normal contractor effort will likely minimize any difficulties.

Very Low

Very Good

(1) complete and comprehensive;

(2) exceeds required performance and capabilities in a way beneficial to the government; (3) contains no noted deficiencies; (4) demonstrates good understanding of the requirements;

(5) provides high expectation for timely completion and good quality.

RISK:

(1) Any proposal weaknesses have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in price, or degradation of performance.

(2) Normal contractor effort will likely minimize any difficulties.

Low Risk

Satisfactory

(1) mostly complete and comprehensive;

(2) meets required performance and capabilities.

(3) contains no noted deficiencies; (4) demonstrates adequate understanding of the requirements;

(5) provides average expectation for timely completion and acceptable quality

RISK:

(1) Proposal has a few weaknesses that can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in price, or degradation of performance.

(2) Special contractor emphasis will likely minimize difficulties.

Moderate

Marginal

(1) neither complete nor comprehensive;

(2) fails to meet many required performance and capabilities, but may become acceptable with discussions;

(3) contains few deficiencies causing negative impact; (4) demonstrates general lack of understanding of the requirements; (5) provides low expectation for timely completion and acceptable quality;

(6) is unacceptable without discussions.

RISK:

(1) Proposal has a few weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in price, or degradation of performance

(2) Even with special contractor emphasis significant difficulties are anticipated.

High Risk

Unsatisfactory

(1) neither complete nor comprehensive;

(2) fails to meet minimum required performance and capabilities;

(3) contains many uncorrectable deficiencies causing negative impact; (4) fails to demonstrate any understanding of the requirements; (5) provides no expectation for timely completion or acceptable quality unless completely revised.

RISK:

(1) Proposal has many weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in price, or degradation of performance.

(2) Even with special contractor emphasis serious difficulties are anticipated.

Very High

Past Performance Evaluations/Documentation shall address the following three items:

1) Recency: Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information

2) Relevance: In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

3) Quality: The Past Performance Evaluation will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information.

Once the past performance evaluation is completed, one of the following ratings shall be assigned for Factor B.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating: Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, None, Neutral

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

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a little or no

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.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A. The Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated best value award decision to meet the goal of awarding the contemplated contract.

B. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information, in the format specified by Section L, Proposal Preparation

Instructions.

C. Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for a proposal revision.