20R0003-0001-SEC-M-ATTACHMENT-2.pdf

Section 00 21 16

SECTION M

PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

1) Awards will be made in accordance with Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts, dated December 13, 2017. The Government intends to award a contract to each and all qualifying offerors. A qualifying offeror is an offeror who is determined to be a responsible source; who submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; and whom the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe would likely offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

a. Responsibility: Offerors will be determined to be a responsible source by completing and submitting the responsibility determination included within this procurement. The Contracting Officer will review the information submitted and utilize the information to make a responsibility determination for each offeror.

b. Technical Acceptance: The Contracting Officer will review the technical submissions of each offeror to make a determination as to the technical acceptability of each offeror.

c. Fair and Reasonable Pricing: The Contracting Officer may utilize historical and/or past performance information to make a determination that there is no reason to believe that an offeror will offer other than fair and reasonable pricing

2) The Government intends to make award without holding discussions with offerors. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Sources Selection Authority (SSA) determines them to be necessary. Therefore, offerors are encouraged to include their best terms and conditions in the initial offer.

3) The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15, Source Selection procedures (and adhering to the Class Deviation 2018-O0006). Offers will be evaluated using the evaluation factors and rating criteria as described in Section L & M of the RFP. Noncompliance with the solicitation requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s technical ability or past performance and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract awards.

Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the solicitation will be considered unacceptable.

4) The Contracting Officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals to determine basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators (the Source Selection Team). Failure to provide a complete proposal may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award. Failure to address any factor shall be grounds for elimination from evaluation and consideration for award.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

1) The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each technical proposal:

FACTOR 1 – Technical Approach

Sub-Factor (a) – Key Personnel

Sub-Factor (b) – Demonstrated Experience Sub-Factor (c) – Management Plan

FACTOR 2 – Past Performance

2) Factors 1 will receive one of two ratings: Acceptable or Unacceptable. Failure to submit or demonstrate any of the minimum requirements associated with any Sub-Factor shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating for Factor 1.

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3) Factor 2 will receive one of two ratings: Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The solicitation evaluation factors and rating criteria as described in Section L & M of the RFP describe the details of this source selection’s evaluation factors that offerors must achieve in order to demonstrate a technical proposal that meets the requirements of this solicitation. The offeror’s proposal must receive an Acceptable rating on all factors and sub-factors to be determined technically qualified. Offerors receiving an Unacceptable rating on any single factor or sub-factor will be deemed overall Unacceptable and will not be considered for award.

3. EVALUATION RATING CRITERIA OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Note 1: For submission of technical evaluation information based on a Subcontractor, Joint Venture, or Teaming Arrangement please refer to Section L, Paragraph 13, 14, and 15 of the RFP for additional submission requirements to receive credit for experience or past performance of a Sub-Contractor, Joint Venture Partner, or Teaming Arrangement Partner.

Note 2: The offeror’s proposal must receive an Acceptable rating on all factors and associated sub-factors to be determined technically qualified. Offerors receiving an Unacceptable rating on any single factor or sub-factor will be deemed overall Unacceptable and will not be considered for award.

(1) TAB A – VOLUME 1, FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH

There are three (3) Sub-Factors associated with this evaluation factor. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s submitted information and experience under these Sub-Factors to determine if the contractors indicate technical capability to meet the requirements as specified within the contract specifications to accomplish work. To be considered for technical acceptance the contractor shall submit all required information under each Sub-Factor and such information shall meet the minimum technically acceptable requirements as defined herein.

i. SUB-FACTOR (a) - KEY PERSONNEL (15 Page Limitation)

A. Evaluation Criteria

Key Personnel Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. Minimum required documentation included and submitted that demonstrates availability of qualified and experienced Contract Quality Control (CQC) System Managers.

To be rated Technically Acceptable for this factor the contractor must meet the minimum requirements.

Failure to submit or demonstrate any of the minimum requirements shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating:

a. Contract Quality Control (CQC) System Manager: Minimum requirements for this item to be rated

Technically Acceptable include:

i. Submission of verification of full time positions employed and staffed with personnel that can serve as Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Managers.

ii. Submitted proof via certificate that full time personnel to serve as CQC System Manager has completed the Construction Quality Management for Contractors (CQM) course within the past 5 years from date of this RFP or has provided a plan indicating how designated representatives shall obtain CQM Certification within 90 calendar days from date of award.

iii. Experience and/or education meets requirements and offeror demonstrated that an individual is available and is competent and capable of successfully completing the roles of CQC System Manager in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. Minimum required documentation is not included for Contract Quality Control (CQC) System Manager and/or documentation provided does not demonstrate acceptable qualifications and experience. Required information for each position is not provided.

ii. SUB-FACTOR (b) – DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE (20 Page Limitation)

Experience Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description included and submitted for each work item identified and documentation demonstrates that the contractor has capability and experience, to ensure work is completed in accordance with the contract specifications. To be rated Technically Acceptable for this factor the contractor must meet the following minimum requirements for each work item. Failure to submit or demonstrate any of the minimum requirements shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating:

a. Levee Repair and Rehabilitation. Minimum requirements for this item to be rated Technically Acceptable include:

i. Submission of a minimum of 1 Levee Repair and Rehabilitation project demonstrating that the offeror or their proposed Subcontractor has experience and has performed the specific work item of this solicitation.

ii. Submission of name, phone, and email of customer in which projects were performed for.

iii. Description of work performed on the project and documentation demonstrates that the contractor has capability and experience to complete levee repair and rehabilitation efforts.

b. Hydrated Lime Treated Embankment Repair. Minimum requirements for this item to be rated

i. Submission of a minimum of 1 Hydrated Lime Treated or similar Embankment Repair project demonstrating that the offeror or their proposed Subcontractor has experience and has performed the specific work item of this solicitation.

ii. Submission of name, phone, and email of customer in which projects were performed for.

contractor has capability and experience to complete lime treated embankment repairs.

c. Relief Well Installation, Rehabilitation, or Repair. Minimum requirements for this item to be rated

i. Submission of a minimum of 1 Relief Well Installation, Rehabilitation, or Repair project demonstrating that the offeror or their proposed Subcontractor has experience and has performed the specific work item of this solicitation.

ii. Submission of name, phone, and email of customer in which projects were performed for.

iii. Description of work performed on the project and documentation demonstrates that the contractor has capability and experience to complete relief well installation, rehabilitation, or repair efforts.

d. Slip Lining of Existing Drainage Pipe. Minimum requirements for this item to be rated Technically

Acceptable include:

i. Submission of a minimum of 1 Slip Lining project demonstrating that the offeror or their proposed Subcontractor has experience and has performed the specific work item of this solicitation.

ii. Submission of name, phone, and email of customer in which projects were performed for.

contractor has capability and experience to complete slip lining of existing drainage pipes.

documentation is not included demonstrating experience and/or documentation provided, does not demonstrate that the contractor has capability and experience to complete work items. Required information for each work item is not provided.

iii. SUB-FACTOR (c) – MANAGEMENT PLAN (35 Page Limitation)

Management Approach Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description included and the submitted documentation demonstrates that the contractor has an acceptable Management Plan.

To be rated Technically Acceptable for this factor the contractor must meet the following minimum requirements for each item identified below. Failure to submit or demonstrate any of the minimum requirements shall result in an Unacceptable Technical Rating:

a. Organizational Structure: Minimum requirements for this item to be rated Technically Acceptable include:

i. Organizational Structure demonstrates an overall management/ organizational structure and respective levels of authority that will manage projects.

ii. Organizational Structure demonstrates that the offeror has a Quality Control and Safety

Corporate Structure.

iii. Offeror demonstrates they can provide, organize, and coordinate project teams and crews to effectively support two or more concurrent task orders.

b. Work Distribution: Minimum requirement for this item to be rated Technically Acceptable include:

i. Offeror identifies what definable features of work will be performed by the offeror’s own forces and plan demonstrates experience to self-perform.

ii. Offeror identifies what definable features of work will be performed by subcontractors, signed letters of subcontractor commitment are included for all subcontractor efforts, and plan demonstrates experience of subcontractors to perform work.

iii. Documentation identifies who will perform all primary definable features of work as identified below:

1. Earthwork operations for levee repairs

2. Hydrated Lime-treated embankment treatments

3. Stone surfacing and stone armor protection

4. Installation and rehabilitation of drainage structures

5. Concrete repair and rehabilitation

6. Relief well rehabilitation and replacement

7. Camera inspection & slip-lining existing drainage structures documentation is not included for management plan and/or documentation provided, does not demonstrate that the contractor has an acceptable Management Plan. Required information for item is not provided.

(2) TAB B – VOLUME 1, FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE. (25 Page Limitation)

Note 1: For submission of Past Performance information based on a Subcontractor, Joint Venture, or Teaming Arrangement please refer to Section L, Paragraph 13, 14, and 15 of the RFP for additional submission requirements to receive credit for experience or past performance of a Sub-Contractor, Joint Venture Partner, or Teaming Arrangement Partner.

i. The Government will evaluate past performance either as acceptable or unacceptable. The recency and relevancy of the information (as determined by the Government), the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance may be considered.

ii. Past Performance on projects shall be the same or similar in scope and complexity.

iii. For the purpose of the past performance evaluation, offerors shall be defined to include business arrangements and relationships, such as Joint Venture participants, teaming partners, and key subcontractor(s). The past performance record of each firm in the business arrangement may be evaluated by the Government.

To receive credit for past performance by a Sub-Contractor, or work which the prime Contractor previously performed as a Sub-Contractor to another prime, the PPQ must state in detail the nature of the work performed as a Sub-Contractor, the total percentage of the overall contract performed as a Sub-Contractor and the total amount of work performed as a Sub- Contractor.

To receive credit for past performance as a Joint Venture, the PPQ form must state in detail the nature of the work performed by both of the Joint Venture partners, the total percentage of the work performed by both of the Joint Venture partners, and the total amount of work performed by both of the Joint Venture partners.

To receive credit for past performance as a Teaming Arrangement, the PPQ form must state in detail the nature of the work performed by both of the Teaming Partners, the total percentage of the work performed by each partner, and the total amount of the work performed by each partner.

iv. The Performance Assessment Reporting System will be utilized to validate past performance ratings on Department of Defense contracts, as well as any other past performance information the Government has available to evaluate a contractor’s past performance. The Government may contact references provided as part of this factor for the purposes of assessing and verifying the scope of the work performed. Offerors shall provide accurate, current, and complete contact information for references provided in the project descriptions.

Offerors must demonstrate the following acceptability standards to receive an “ACCEPTABLE” rating:

1. Demonstrates that acceptable quality work has been previously delivered on similar project(s).

2. Demonstrates timely completion on previously delivered similar project(s).

3. All past or current references have overall ratings of satisfactory or above.

4. All past or current references indicate that the contractor would be recommended to perform work in the future.

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note above)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a) (2)(iv). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.

End of Section M