S02_Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors - Revised Amendment 0001.pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS

Revised - Amendment 0001

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 This is a competitive procurement using the Best Value Trade Off source selection process identified in FAR Part 15.101-1. For this procurement, all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price. A contract will only be awarded to an offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the RFP’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations and certifications).

1.2 The Contracting Officer will conduct proposal compliance review for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the board. Non-compliance with the RFP requirements may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors are included in the solicitation and will be used to evaluate proposals:

i) Company Experience

ii) Project Management

iii) Past Performance

iv) Price

EVALUATION FACTOR 1: COMPANY EXPERIENCE

The offeror shall submit up to 3 contracts/task orders but not less than 2 demonstrating a minimum of 5 years’ experience performing construction projects under NAICS code 236220 in a Government environment. The contracts/task orders shall provide detailed information about the company’s experience providing construction services, which are of similar nature to the work to be performed under the requirements described in this solicitation. The company’s relevant experience will be assessed based on its breadth and depth of the contracts/task orders and will be evaluated for recency* and relevancy**.

Basis of Evaluation: The basis of evaluation will include the offeror's experience in performing recent and relevant construction projects as defined herein. The assessment of the offeror's relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Proposals that fail to provide required and complete information may result in a lower or unfavorable rating.

* Relevancy is defined where used in this solicitation as similar in scope and size of this solicitation.

** Recency is defined where used in this solicitation as contracts/task orders 100% complete within the past 5 years as of the solicitation date or current contracts/task orders that are at least 75% complete as of the solicitation date.

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Project Management should include detailed information regarding how the offeror plans to coordinate and manage this requirement with any other project obligations currently ongoing. As this project is a high priority for completion, describe offeror’s approach to performing the work of the project in order to complete on time, including avoiding or minimizing adverse impact to building operations and avoiding or minimizing cost or schedule growth.

Therefore, please submit your Project Management Plan (PMP) which shall include the credentials/resumes/information for the proposed key personnel which are the Project Manager and Site Superintendent. Please note, the Site Superintendent shall be qualified to serve as the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) and the Quality Control Manager (QCM) and the qualifications/experience should be described in the PMP. No separate SSHO or QCM required. The PMP shall also list planned major subcontractors by name, address, and intended scope of work. No resumes required for major subcontractors.

Basis of Evaluation: The basis of evaluation will include consideration of offeror’s proposed project management plan as defined in the solicitation herein. The assessment of the offeror’s method to manage the project shall be used as a means of evaluating the offeror’s ability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

The assessment of the offeror’s past performance is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. Past performance will be rated on recency and relevancy as described herein and confidence to perform the work. The recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii). The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of technical qualifications from any other sources, including sources outside of the Government.

The offeror shall provide reference information from the owner’s point of contact supplied for contracts/task orders submitted under Evaluation Factor 1: Company Experience provided via “General Contractor Reference Form” for each contract/task order. CPARS are requested for each contract/task order under Evaluation Factor 1. For contracts/task orders that do not have a CPARS, the offeror shall also obtain a “Past Performance Questionnaire” to submit in the Technical Proposal Package. The Questionnaire shall be completed by the referenced project’s POC (Contracting Officer/Company Project POC, etc.), the questionnaire shall be signed, dated and have the following contact information: Name, Address, Position, Phone Number, and email address. Questionnaires submitted are subject to client verification.

In addition to the above, the Government will review any available past performance data in CPARS, not limited to the contracts/task orders under Evaluation Factor 1 (if not provided), using all CAGE/UEI numbers for (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate). The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any available source and may contact customers other than those identified by the offeror, along with any data obtained on contracts/task orders in progress for VA or other agencies when evaluating past performance.

Basis of Evaluation: The basis of evaluation will be the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government reflect a trend of satisfactory or better performance considering:

1) a pattern of successful completion of tasks.

2) a pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality.

3) a pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.).

4) tasks that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand.

5) relevant, meaning similar in size scope, and complexity to this requirement.

In accordance with FAR 15.305 offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance. If the offeror lacks a record of relevant or available past performance history or there is no expectation of either successful or unsuccessful performance based on the offeror’s past performance record, the past performance evaluation will be given a neutral rating.

Past Performance will be rated on relevancy* and confidence** to perform the work.

* Relevancy is defined where used in this solicitation as similar in scope and size of this solicitation.

**Confidence is defined where used in this solicitation as how well (quality) the contractual work was performed, and confidence associated with the performance.

EVALUATION FACTOR 4: PRICE

The offeror shall provide a price in accordance with this Request for Proposal and the Statement of Work using the Price Schedule and other requested pricing data. The offeror shall also acknowledge any and all solicitation amendments issued by VA.

The price proposal must be submitted as a separate PDF file from the technical proposal. The Offeror’s overall price will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using price analysis. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) the government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price.