PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA.docx

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Basis for award.

The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor to provide professional construction services in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW), drawings, and specifications to Renovate Primary Care Phase 1.

The Government intends to use the “Best Value” tradeoff process source selection approach in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. Award will be made to the responsive responsible offeror whose offer in conformance with this solicitation, results in the best value to the Government, price plus other factors considered. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price contract to the responsive responsible offeror whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors must provide all requested information for each factor. Proposals must address each element of the factors as indicated to be considered responsive to this solicitation. Factor headings should be typed in bold text for identification. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure the submitted proposal is in the proper format and the provided information is clear and free of ambiguities. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror's disqualification from award. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Innovative, creative or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements should be clearly noted and justified in the proposal.

2.2 Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal may be considered unacceptable and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

2.3 All proposal materials shall be submitted in separate .pdf documents with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should match the submission requirements identified below.

Volume I: Sections 1 – 3 Volume I: Sections 1-3 shall be submitted in .pdf format. Proposals should be typed using 11- point Times New Roman font. Packages that are handwritten will not be evaluated. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub factor) and format may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

Volume I Sections are to be prepared as follows:

Volume II: Section 4 Volume II: Section 4 shall be submitted as a .pdf and shall be submitted as a separate document, included with the proposal package. It shall include the following: Standard Form 1442, completed divisional cost break down sheet, any additional submission documents such as reps and certs, bid bond, Limitations on subcontracting certificate, Buy American Certificate, OSHA or EPA violation certification and EMR rating document (See additional submission documents).

2.4 All proposals shall be submitted in .pdf version to:

lester.griffith@va.gov

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs will evaluate the proposals. The identities of the SSEB personnel are confidential, and any attempt by the offerors to contact these individuals is prohibited. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions, if necessary, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information.

3.2 The proposal evaluation consists of four parts: Technical Capability, Past Performance, Schedule and Price Evaluation.

3.2.1 Schedule, Management approach Evaluation and technical: Proposals will be evaluated against the Evaluation Factors and Criteria as identified in paragraphs below.

3.2.2 Price Evaluation: After the SSEB completes the technical evaluation the Contracting Officer will evaluate Volume II price proposals.

4.2. As demonstrated in their proposals, offerors will be evaluated in terms of the offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the project’s requirements as identified in the SOW, and those proposals demonstrating an ability to exceed specified requirements may be rated higher in those areas than proposals demonstrating only the ability to meet requirements. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

The Government intends to make award to a responsible offeror submitting a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be in the best interest of the Government

5. EVALUATION FACTORS:

5.1 Evaluation Factor 1 - Technical Capability: Offerors shall submit a clear and concise narrative not to exceed 25 pages (front and back side use of a single page will count as 2 pages). This page limit excludes the Organizational Chart (with brief relevant details of individuals' experiences/qualifications), Tentative Schedule, Quality Control Plan synopsis. Company advertising literature shall not be included. The narrative shall address the two (2) sub-factors detailed herein. The sub-factors, listed under Evaluation Factor 1, are of equal importance. An overall rating will be assigned at the Factor Level only based on all reviewers' ratings. The Government will evaluate the offeror's answers for information and completeness.

Sub-factor 1: Management Approach.

Using the information submitted in response to the solicitation, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to successfully manage the project.

1. Offerors shall identify key personnel proposed for the project and their documented experience on successful completion of other similar projects. Emphasis shall be placed on projects with construction occurring in fully active and sensitive hospital departments with multiple phasing requirements.

2. Offerors shall discuss the sequence of work to be performed in a realistic fashion; i.e. coordination with subcontractors.

3. Offerors shall describe in detail the management techniques they will implement to ensure this project is completed timely and successfully. The project has very complicated phasing and coordination requirements within an active hospital affecting departments that must remain operational at all times. How subcontractors will be managed through the phased approach is to be clearly detailed. An understanding of the phasing requirements shall be presented with emphasis on timely completion while performing risk management and control of the project.

Sub-factor 2: Experience.

The offeror shall discuss their technical expertise and experience with successfully performing construction work in a fully active hospital environment. Expertise in quality control, successful implementation of a construction phasing schedule, experience in coordinating multiple discipline subcontractors working day, evening and overnight shifts concurrently, all while maintaining without interruption hospital department operations. The information provided should be for the offeror, not for proposed subcontractors.

5.2 Evaluation Factor 2 - Contractor's Past Performance

Submission Requirements: Contractor Past Performance - Project Recency and Relevancy

Using the information submitted in response to the solicitation, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical expertise to determine acceptability. The past performance section shall not exceed four (4) pages and shall be rated based on recent and relevant project submittals. To be evaluated favorably the offeror must provide details of three (3) previous similar contracts within the past three (3) years including:

1) Project description, at a minimum, the description should include scope, size and dollar value of the project and can include photographs, to determine recent and relevant past performance.

2) Show the participation of key personnel (identified previously with resume) in the listed projects. The offeror can also include the subcontractors by company name. Including subcontractors may be beneficial to show the experience of the company in addition to the key personnel.

3) Include customer's point of contact (name, title, phone number, and email).

In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, e.g., the relevance of an offeror's Past Performance information and adverse Past Performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor clerical errors.

Evaluation Criteria Contractor Past Performance - Project Recency and Relevancy The SSEB will evaluate the Project Recency and Relevancy based on the information provided by the contractor.

Evaluation Criteria Contractor Past Performance - Confidence The SSEB will evaluate the degree of successful completion of the recent and relevant past performance identified in the proposal in response to Volume I, Section 2, Past Performance, for the prime contractor past performance along with the designated team of subcontractors. Documentation of satisfactory performance of projects similar in size, scope, and dollar value will be considered to have met the minimum requirements of the RFP. Projects that are not determined similar in size, scope and dollar value may not be considered. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2). Evaluations may include past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and shall receive a neutral rating for Past Performance. Offerors may provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective action taken, if desired. This shall be rated based on the confidence portrayed for each of the projects submitted.

A neutral rating is given when no current and/or relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. Government Personnel were unable to identify any relevant Past Performance information for the offeror or key team members/subcontractors or their key personnel. This is neither a negative or positive assessment and represents and unknown risk.

This information shall be submitted for this procurement using past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire.

5.3 Evaluation Factor 3 - Contractor's Schedule

Submission Requirements: Contractor Schedule The SSEB will evaluate the degree of presentation and understanding of the offeror’s proposed Schedule.

The progress schedule will be in a time scaled bar graph format. The horizontal axis will be scaled for time beginning with the tentative Notice to Proceed and concluding with contract completion. The vertical axis will show the milestones and major portions of the contract work including all phasing. All schedule items will show a start date and a completion date. The detailed schedule will indicate specific tasks with dates for each step of the process including:

Construction Period: Mobilization; abatement; demolition method and sequencing; phasing; provisions for overtime or shift work; site and building utilities interruption, commissioning; punch list; final inspection; demobilization.

General Project Delivery Schedule and Narrative: Show relationships between construction activities for (at a minimum), phases of the work as detailed in the design documents.

The Offeror shall specify how much allowance has been made for bad weather in the schedule, interruption of work due to relocation of occupants or phase task dependency, the allowable days of the week and the hours of construction operations during each phased sequence of the work, and the percentage of contract completion that will be achieved at the end of each month of the contract.

Short Schedules - The Offeror must provide for completion within the time frame (number of days after receipt of the Notice to Proceed). The maximum anticipated days of completion for this project is indicated on the Standard Form 1442 Construction, Offer and Award (Construction, Alteration or Repair. This duration shall establish the contract completion date. Short schedules will not be accepted. Critical path activity durations shall total the number of days indicated on Standard Form 1442.

5.4 Evaluation Factor 4 - Volume II - Price Information

The offeror shall complete and submit Standard Form 1442. The offeror shall submit a price based on divisions that are further broken down by the line items. See attached division cost breakdown template. Note: If discussions or negotiations occur, the Government may require additional cost information.

Discounts: Prompt payment discounts will not be considered in the evaluation of offers

In the event a minor clerical error has occurred, then the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the “clarifications” process or the Contracting Officer determines discussions are required.

Discussions Government intends to make award to a responsible Offeror submitting a conforming proposal without discussions if deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.