SECTION_M_revised_0002.pdf

140P8325R0003 OLYM Lagoon Rehab

Page | 1

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government will conduct a source selection using the Best Value Continuum Tradeoff Process defined at FAR Part

15.1. The Contracting Officer (CO) will obligate and award a contract to the offeror who submits a proposal the Source

Selection Authority (SSA) determines conforms to solicitation requirements; is fair and reasonable; and provides the best value to the government considering all evaluation factors combined as detailed below. For this acquisition, the CO is the

SSA.

2. The Government may accept other than the lowest priced proposal when the perceived benefits of a higher priced proposal merit the price differential.

3. Additionally, pursuant to FAR 52.215-1(f), Contract Award, contained herein:

• The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interest.

• The Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

• The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the CO later determines them to be necessary.

B. EVALUATION PROCESS

All proposal evaluations will be conducted in strict confidence. The number and identifies of offerors and proposal contents will be revealed only to individuals involved in the evaluation process. No information will be revealed to other offerors. The evaluation process is as follows:

1. Initial Review: Proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the solicitation to verify that all submission requirements are met; all certifications are complete, and the offeror is responsible and otherwise eligible to receive award of a federal contract. If the proposal does not comply or lacks sufficient information to be meaningfully evaluated, it may be eliminated from further consideration for award.

2. Technical Evaluation: A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) comprised of Government personnel will conduct a technical evaluation of proposals. The TEP will review, evaluate, assess risk, and rate all acceptable proposals against the technical factors contained in the solicitation. The TEP will not have knowledge of any pricing until the technical evaluation is complete.

3. Price Evaluation: Upon completion of the technical evaluation, the TEP and CO/SSA will perform price analysis on all offers and compare each proposal’s technical merits to its proposed pricing. The TEP will make an award recommendation to the

CO/SSA.

4. Tradeoff Analysis: The CO/SSA will review the TEP’s award recommendation and independently perform a tradeoff analysis by further comparing each proposal’s technical advantages, disadvantages, strengths, weaknesses, risks and benefits to its proposed pricing.

5. Selection: The CO/SSA will select the proposal that provides the overall best value, considering all evaluation factors, to the

Government for award. The Government may elect to accept other than the lowest priced proposal when the perceived benefits of a higher priced proposal merit the price differential.

Page | 2

C. EVALUATION FACTORS

1. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE:

For this source selection, Technical and Past Performance when combined are approximately equal in value to Price. All

Technical/Non-Priced evaluation factors are considered equal for this source selection.

2. VOLUME I – NON-PRICE PROPOSAL

a. FACTOR 1 – PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Project experience demonstrating (1) capability to successfully complete relevant projects of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation; (2) strong technical knowledge and skill required for this solicitation; and (3) effective management, problem solving, communication, coordination, and organization present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated. Those not demonstrating these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

i. Installing, rehabilitating, and/or modifying pressurized wastewater disposal systems designed for more than 3,500 gpd.

ii. Installing programmable wastewater control systems with input/output (I/O) instrumentation and operator interface for adjustment of process control.

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors

Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government. This will be determined by comparing differences in the value of technical and past performance elements with differences in cost to the Government.

However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve slightly superior technical or management features.

The relative importance of the factors is in relation to achieving the Government's objectives.

1. Technical factors are approximately equal to one another. Subfactors within each factor are listed in descending order of importance.

2. Past performance factors are approximately equal to one another.

3. Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

Source Selection Decision

The TEP will utilize the proposal evaluation process as described in FAR Subpart 15.3 – Source Selection and provide one consensus evaluation worksheet to the SSA. The Contracting Officer, serving as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make a “best value” determination to select the successful offeror. “Best Value” means the expected outcome of the acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The SSA’s decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. The assessment process is set forth in FAR Subpart 15.308 – Source Selection Decision.

The SSA may reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.

b. FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

1.Technical Capability

Technical capability of the prime contractor (offeror) will be evaluated using the following factors:

Page | 3

a) Relevant Prior Experience of the Offeror. Experience is an opportunity to learn about performance methods, problems, and solutions by having done the same or similar work in the recent past. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s direct participation in managing these types of comparable projects:

i. Installing, rehabilitating, and/or modifying pressurized wastewater disposal systems designed for more than 3,500 gpd.

ii. Installing programmable wastewater control systems with input/output (I/O) instrumentation and operator interface for adjustment of process control.

Proposals demonstrating that the offeror has successfully completed projects of similar scope and magnitude to this solicitation

(which indicates they have the technical knowledge and skills required for this project and have successfully implemented effective management procedures in prior relevant projects) represent lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated; in general, more instances of experience will translate to a higher rating. In addition, offerors demonstrating specific relevant experience with effective management, problem solving, communication, coordination, and organization present lower levels of risk and will be more favorably rated than firms without that specific relevant experience. Offerors with fewer instances of relevant experience present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

b) Technical Approach to Anticipated Challenges. Evaluate the technical merits and quality of the offeror’s proposed construction schedule and narrative describing their analysis of and technical approach to anticipated challenges.

Narratives that demonstrate a solid understanding of the challenge and logical, appropriate, and thorough methods to mitigate each challenge present less risk and will be more favorably rated. Narratives which do not demonstrate these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorably rated.

i. Demonstrates a clear and efficient critical path with logical sequencing that includes all work phases noted in drawings and project specifications.

ii. Accounts for procurement lead-time, subcontractor/trade coordination, weather impacts, testing requirements, resource and time constraints.

iii. Demonstrates risk mitigation and successful completion within the required period of performance.

iv. Identifies Key Personnel with experience successfully completing relevant projects similar in scope and magnitude through effective problem solving, communication, coordination, and organization.

Proposals should include a brief narrative highlighting any unique challenges and/or constraints and describing any assumptions that inform the technical approach. Technical approaches and constructions schedules which do not demonstrate these attributes present higher levels of risk and will be less favorable rated.

2. Past Performance

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the offeror satisfied its customers in the past and complied with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The past performance of the offeror on projects similar in scope and complexity (i.e., relevant to the current project) will be evaluated in the areas of quality, timeliness, business relations, and cost control. Offerors demonstrating a higher level of successful past performance for recent, relevant projects will be more favorably rated. 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.

The general approach for evaluating past performance shall be written or telephonic customer surveys based on past contracts identified. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered by the evaluators. Offerors are encouraged to provide information on problems

Page | 4 encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions. The Government may contact sources listed by the offeror and/or other sources of information including, but not limited to, Federal, State and Local governments, better business bureaus, published media, and electronic databases to verify the information provided in the proposal.

Specifically, the past performance of the offeror’s team on projects similar in scope and complexity will be evaluated on the applicable characteristics listed below.

1. Quality.

i) Compliance with contract requirements.

ii) Quality of workmanship.

iii) Commitment to workplace safety.

iv) Quality of administrative and product submittals, and other deliverables.

2. Timeliness.

i) Adherence to project delivery schedules and milestones.

ii) Effectiveness addressing scheduling challenges.

iii) Response to technical direction, owner requests, and change orders.

iv) Submission of timely/accurate/complete invoices, payroll reports, and other submittals.

3. Business relations and management.

i) Flexibility and cooperativeness in resolving problems.

ii) Commitment to customer satisfaction.

iii) Ability to effectively manage subcontractors’ performance, associated administrative tasks, and resolution of subcontractor issues.

iv) General oversight by project manager and site superintendent.

4. Cost control.

i) Provide fair and reasonable pricing for contract modifications.

ii) Promptly pay subcontractors and suppliers.

Once sufficient information is gathered on the past performance for each offeror, the TEP will assign a confidence rating to their assessment of how well that offeror’s team would perform on the current project.

3. VOLUME II – BUSINESS AND PRICE PROPOSAL:

Submittals in Volume II will not be rated.

a. A price evaluation will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the proposed price. Reasonableness will be determined considering other competitive prices received and comparison to the independent Government estimate (IGE) or to any other information the Contracting Officer deems useful in his or her discretion. The Government will look at whether a proposed price is too high, possibly indicative of capabilities that exceed those needed for successful performance of the work;

and may also consider whether a proposed price is too low, since this may indicate a lack of technical understanding on the offeror's part or a performance risk associated with the proposal that the agency may not be willing to accept. If multiple contract line items are included in the price schedule, prices will also be evaluated to determine whether any line items are unbalanced. Offerors are advised to distribute costs appropriately.

b. Standard Form (SF) 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, (Construction, Alteration, or Repair): The SF-1442 will be reviewed for completeness.

c. AMENDMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

Page | 5

Amendment acknowledgements will be reviewed for timely and proper acknowledgement.

d. SF 24 BID BOND: The SF24 Bid Bond will be reviewed for completeness and acceptability.

e. SECTION K REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS: Information will be reviewed for completeness and award eligibility. Attachment #3

f. GENERAL REFERENCES: Points of contact will be queried to determine Responsibility pursuant to FAR 9.103.

Attachment #6 Relevant Experience

g. SUBCONTRACTING PERCENTAGE WORKSHEET (SET-ASIDE): This worksheet will be reviewed for completeness and correlation to proposed pricing.

Attachment #4

NOTE: OVERALL RELATIVE IMPORTANCE: For this source selection, Technical and Past Performance when combined are approximately equal in value to Price. All Technical/Non-Priced evaluation factors are considered equal for this source selection.

(End of Provision)

SPECIAL PROVISION 1: EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Except when it is determined not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

END of Section M