A15_Draft_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD: BEST VALUE EVALUATION

(a) Award will be made to the offeror: whose offer conforms to the solicitation requirements;

who is determined responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1 by possessing the financial and other capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the contract; and whose proposal is judged, by an integrated assessment of price/cost and non-price evaluation factors, to provide the best value to the Government in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria.

(b) The Government intends to award a single contract in response to the solicitation. The Government reserves the right not to award a contract depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and the availability of funds.

(c) Evaluation of Proposals.

(1) Initial Evaluation of Proposals. All offers received will be evaluated in accordance with the stated evaluation factors. The Government reserves the right to make an award without discussions based solely upon initial proposals. Therefore, offerors should ensure that their initial proposal constitutes their best offer in terms of both price and the technical solution being proposed.

If award is not made upon initial proposals, then the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals. 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. Only those offerors in the competitive range will be offered an opportunity to participate further in the procurement.

(2) Discussions/Final Proposal Revisions. The Contracting Officer will engage in discussions with all offerors in the competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306. At the conclusion of discussions, a final common cut-off date for submission of final proposal revisions will be established. Those offerors remaining in the competitive range will be notified to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

(3) Final Evaluation of Offers. A final proposal evaluation will be performed after receipt of Final Proposal Revisions.

(End of Provision)

M.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

In determining which proposal provides the best value to the Government, non-price (technical) evaluation factors are somewhat more important than evaluated price. Proposals will be technically evaluated as either “Outstanding,” “Good,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” on the basis of the following evaluation criteria.

Based upon the results of the integrated assessment of the technical and cost/price proposals, the Government may make an award to other than the lowest-priced offeror or the offeror with the highest technical score if the source selection official determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.

VOLUME I—NON-PRICE FACTORS

(a) Technical Evaluation Factors: The following non-price evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance.

FACTOR I: Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel: The offeror will be evaluated on the proposed names, titles, experience and qualifications related to the requirements of this project, and a description of the duties of those individuals proposed as key personnel for the positions listed in the solicitation’s Key Personnel clause, who will be assigned to the contract.

The offeror will be evaluated on the personnel identified as key personnel in the solicitation’s Key Personnel clause, the submitted resumes and information representative of their education, background, recent work experience, and accomplishments. Resumes will be evaluated, as a minimum for each position:

• Professional experience

• Employment history

• Education

• Training

• Licenses and/or Certificates

• References

Offerors will be evaluated on each person identified as key personnel in the solicitation’s Key Personnel clause, and the submitted letter of commitment indicating that the person understands the roles and responsibilities of the designated position(s), and that she/he is available to commence work on the contract during the stated period of performance, should the offeror be awarded the contract.

FACTOR II: Specialized Experience of the Prime and Subcontractors: Offerors will be evaluated on its submitted technical proposal and if it sufficiently demonstrates its ability and experience, including proposed subcontractors and their small business status, to meet or exceed the requirements described in this solicitation. Offerors will be evaluated on its responsiveness to all of the requirements of solicitation and on if it has provided sufficient information to allow evaluation of the proposals per Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

• Offerors will be evaluated on the list and explanation of its experience as the prime contractor on at least six (6) vertical healthcare construction projects with multiple activities in operation and limited space of a similar size and scope (contract price exceeding $4 million) in a fully functioning hospital operating 24 hours a day within the last 10 years. The offeror will be evaluated on its explanation of and identification of key personnel, if any, that were integral to the success of the project.

• Offerors will be evaluated on its list and explanation of its subcontractors’ experience on between three (3) and six (6) vertical healthcare construction projects with multiple activities in operation and limited space of a similar size and scope in a fully functioning hospital operating 24 hours a day within the last 10 years in the particular areas of the proposed subcontractors’ trade. The offeror’s explanation of its scheduling and other subcontractors, if applicable will be evaluated.

• Offerors will be evaluated on its description of its experience, if any, of the prime and proposed subcontractors working together on projects of a similar size and scope in a fully functioning hospital operating 24 hours a day within the last 10 years.

• Offerors will be evaluated on its description of it and its proposed subcontractors’ knowledge of infection control and interim life safety measure requirements.

• Offerors will be evaluated on its description of any added value the offeror can provide as a result of its experience in vertical healthcare construction projects with multiple activities in operation and limited space of a similar size and scope. Such added value may include cost-saving proposals the Offeror has identified for the Government to consider.

FACTOR III: Technical Approach, Capacity to Accomplish the Work, and Geographic Location: Offerors will be evaluated on the information submitted on how the project is to be organized, staffed, and managed that demonstrates the offeror's understanding and effective management of events and tasks. Offerors will be evaluated on how the contract requirements will be met and the means used to accomplish them, with an emphasis on how the offeror intends to schedule and manage the project. Offerors will be evaluated on the provided information on the offeror’s facility, geographic location, and workforce that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the solicitation requirements including completing the project earlier than solicited. Merely repeating the contract requirements and stating that they will be accomplished, without discussing how the offeror will accomplish the contract requirements is not preferred.

Offeror will be evaluated on its provided narrative describing the project and how the scope of work will be accomplished, taking into consideration the renovation aspects of the work, the site limitations, the physical limitations, staging and access limitations, and other limitations that the offeror identifies, to include information on safety and environmental concerns. The offeror will be evaluated on its description of the facilities and equipment, geographic location, and workforce which will be used in the performance of the contract, and (ii) how the management and coordination of consultant and subcontractor efforts will be accomplished to support the offeror’s technical approach. The offeror will be evaluated on its submitted organizational chart, illustrating the organization. The offeror will be evaluated on its description of its process for team management and internal coordination of the project and its Team matrix or other suitable information (not included in the page limitation).

Offeror will be evaluated on its provided draft schedule indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved indicating phasing requirements, major milestones, and other tasks including submittals, quality control, systems testing, commissioning, and O&M submissions/approvals and contract closeout. The offeror will be evaluated on its description of its proposed team’s familiarity with using Oracle’s PRIMAVERA P6 Contractor software Version 6.1 as defined in Section 01 32 01.00 10 - PROJECT SCHEDULE. The offeror will be evaluated on its description of its process for submitting a Contractor/Subcontractor Request for Information (RFI) and its example of an RFI that represents how it will present such a request. The offferor will be evaluated on its description of its process for making change order requests and its sample of a past change order request that represented the scope of work required for the change. The offeror will be evaluated on its description of its process for dealing with unforeseen existing conditions/circumstanced discovered during the construction process, including the processes and methods the firm uses to address the conditions/circumstances.

The offeror will be evaluated on its description of any teaming or joint venture arrangements, including the description of each firm’s roles and responsibilities on the project. The copy of the teaming or joint venture agreement(s) shall be appended to the proposal (not included in the page limitation) and evaluated.

FACTOR IV: Indian Preference: The offeror will be evaluated on its status as an Indian Economic Enterprise or the preference it gives to firms that are Indian Economic Enterprises or proposed Indian Economic Enterprises as subcontractors. Indian Economic Enterprises are defined as any business activity owned by one or more Indians or Indian Tribes that is established for the purpose of profit, provided that (1) the combined Indian or Indian Tribe ownership must constitute not less than 51 percent of the enterprise; (2) the Indians or Indian Tribes must, together, receive at least a majority of the earnings from the contract; and (3) the management and daily business operations of an enterprise must be controlled by one or more individuals who are Indians. To ensure actual control over the enterprise, the individual(s) must possess requisite management or technical capabilities directly related to the primary industry in which the enterprise conducts business. These conditions must exist: (a) at the time an offer is made in response to a written solicitation; (b) at the time of contract award; and (c) during the full term of the contract.

FACTOR V: Past Performance: Offerors will be evaluated on the submitted Past Performance Questionnaire attached to the solicitation for all contracts containing requirements similar in scope to the requirements of the solicitation, performed in whole or part over the last six (6) years. References can include both Government and commercial contracts and subcontracts.

Preference shall be given to firms that have recent direct vertical healthcare construction experience with multiple activities in operation and limited space of a similar size and scope.

The Government reserves the right to assess the past performance of proposed subcontractors.

The Government will use its discretion to determine the sources of past performance information used in the evaluation, and the information may be obtained from references provided by the offeror, the agency's knowledge of contractor performance, other government agencies and/or commercial entities, and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) within last six

(6) years.

If an offeror does not have a history of relevant contract experience, or if past performance information is not available, the offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating; however, an offeror without a history of relevant experience may receive a lowered rating for the experience evaluation factor.

VOLUME II--PRICE PROPOSAL

1. Proposed prices will be evaluated but not rated. The price evaluation will also determine whether the prices proposed are reasonable.

2. Offerors must offer on all items included in Section B, Schedule, in order to be considered for award.

3. The price which will be considered for the purpose of determining the best value to the Government will be the cumulative sum price for all CLINs appearing on the pricing schedule.

4. Evaluation of option items will not obligate the Government to exercise any such options. Any proposal that is materially unbalanced as to the proposed prices for the basic and option items may be rejected as unacceptable. An unbalanced proposal is one that contains prices which are significantly less than the price for some work and prices which are significantly overstated for other work.

5. Offerors are cautioned that failure of the price proposal to fully reflect the effort described in the non-price portions of the proposal may be grounds for the Government to determine that the offeror does not adequately understand the effort required under the contract, and, therefore, may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. Offerors are further cautioned that submission of a price proposal which is determined by the Government to be unrealistically high or unrealistically low may result in rejection of the offer in its entirety, regardless of the merits of the non-price portions of the offer.