Edited evaluation factors 02.docx

516-23-109 Renovate & Abate Flooring in Three Bay Pines Buildings

EVALUATION FACTORS

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL – Factor 1 and Factor 2 Submittal Requirements:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

1. Approach to Asbestos Abatement and Flooring Installation: In a narrative format, diagrams and/or drawing, submit your team’s approach to Asbestos Abatement and Flooring installation in a hospital setting. Include any potential problems and mitigation strategies. Limited to one (1) page.

2. Schedule Narrative: Describe in detail, how your company will meet the 180-calendar day period of performance. Provide an outline of a general schedule showing how you will accomplish this task in 180 calendar days. Describe actions to be taken by the Offeror to mitigate schedule risk. Limited to one (1) page for the general schedule plus one (1) page outlining schedule risk mitigation strategies.

3. Experience of Key Personnel: Describe relevant experience of key personnel to include Site Superintendent and Project Manager. Site Superintendent and Project Manager should have at least two (2) years’ experience in similar scope and size projects. Limited to one (1) page.

4. Experience of Prime Contractor: Briefly explain the Prime Contractor’s experience, technical competence, and expertise working in healthcare environments on projects of similar scope. Prime Contractors shall submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) similar projects involving asbestos abatement and flooring installation completed within five (5) years of the proposal due date. Limited to one (1) page per project.

i. Brief project description.

ii. List of subcontractors.

iii. Relevance to project stated in RFP

iv. Start Date – End Date

v. Initial/Final award amount

vi. State any Change Orders if occurred during the project performance and amount of Change Order

vii. Pictures of completed work (if available)

viii. Project Contracting Officer Representative’s or Client’s name, phone number, and email address

Factor 2: Past Performance

1. Submit CPARS or a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (attachment) for all projects submitted for Factor 2: Past Performance. If a completed CPARS report is not available for submitted projects, submit a customer completed PPQ.

2. Offerors are encouraged to include in Volume 1 other relevant past performance information that the Government may take into consideration in the evaluation process. The information, if provided, shall be limited to the period starting five (5) years prior to the solicitation release date.

3. Offerors are advised that the Government may use all data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources, including, but not limited to, Government–wide databases and personal business experience with the offeror in the development of performance confidence assessments. Past Performance information on contracts not listed by the offeror, or that of planned subcontractors, may also be evaluated. The Government may contact references provided by the offeror, as well as any other source it identifies, and information received may be used in the evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current, accurate and complete Past Performance information rests with the offeror.

VOLUME 2 - PRICE PROPOSAL

Factor 3: Price - Contract Line-Item Schedule Submission Requirements:

Evaluation Criteria:

Price proposal shall be a separate file (clearly separated from the technical and past performance volumes.)

1. Price Proposal Breakdown and all Divisions

2. Completed Price Schedule on Standard Form (SF) 1442 (Total of Proposed Price)

Price proposals shall be submitted on SF 1442, completed, and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal. The price proposal shall encompass all costs associated with the requirements of the subject Solicitation. The total proposed price for all CLINS 0001 shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

Price will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of 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. It shall be noted that an unrealistically low, or high proposed price may be grounds for rejecting an Offeror’s proposal on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal.

The price evaluation will also check for appearance of unbalanced line-item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract. If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

Award cannot be made for project cost for design and construction exceeding the cost limitation, if applicable, described herein.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION:

1. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Government will integrate the evaluation of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. While the Government strives for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process. Ratings will be assigned for sub-factors and an overall rating will be assigned for each factor. After a rating has been assigned, there will be an overall technical rating for each contractor.

2. Offeror may, at the discretion of the Government, be asked to provide information for clarification purposes regarding their proposals. Requests for such clarification information do not constitute discussions.

3. The offeror shall be held responsible for the validity of all information supplied in his/her proposal, including that provided by potential subcontractors. Should subsequent investigation disclose that the fact and conditions were not as stated, the proposal may be rejected.

4. The Government will determine, based on the information provided, if the offeror has demonstrated the ability to perform complete project management of construction projects at the dollar levels indicated in the solicitation.

Volume I: Factor 1: Technical

All subfactors are equal.

Subfactor 1, Approach to Asbestos Abatement and Flooring Installation: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative to arrive at ratings. Companies must provide a detailed and realistic approach to asbestos abatement and flooring installation in an active hospital setting. The Government will evaluate the team’s overall approach to the project completion. Teams with a more detailed and realistic approach will be rated higher.

Subfactor 2, Schedule Narrative: The Government will evaluate the offeror concerning their capability to schedule this construction project. This will include the company’s ability to create a schedule, to include the phasing in an active hospital environment. Contractors with more realistic and more detailed schedules will be rated higher.

Subfactor 3, Experience of Key Personnel: The Government will evaluate the relevant experience of the proposed Site Superintendent and Project Manager. Contractors with site superintendents and project managers with more years of experience in working on asbestos abatement, flooring installation and/or phasing in a hospital environment will be rated higher.

Subfactor 4, Experience of Prime Contractor: The Government will evaluate the offeror concerning their experience, technical competence, and expertise working in healthcare environments on projects of similar scope. Contractors with experience on very similar projects (VA hospital setting, asbestos abatement, flooring installation, and phasing) will be rated higher. Projects that are very relevant and very recent will be rated higher. Completed projects will be rated higher than newly awarded projects. Proposed teams that do not have relevant experience to meet the solicitation’s minimum requirements may be eliminated from consideration.

Volume I: Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance to determine the level of confidence that the proposed team – defined as Prime and/or First Tier subcontractor(s) - will successfully perform the current requirement. As part of this evaluation, VA will consider the relevancy of the projects submitted, to include the size and scope. Significant consideration will be given to prior projects conducted for VA Medical Facilities. The Government may evaluate present and past performance information by using data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources, including, but not limited to: Government databases; personal business experience with the offeror; and information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Questionnaire. The evaluation may take into account Past Performance information regarding predecessor companies, or key personnel who have relevant experience and will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. The Government reserves the right to obtain and evaluate Past Performance information from any source it deems appropriate. The Government may contact references and contact parties other than those identified by the offeror, and information received may be used in the evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current, accurate and complete Past Performance information rests with the offeror.

The Past Performance proposal evaluation will consider such things as business practices, customer relationship, and ability to successfully perform as proposed and other considerations considering recency, relevancy, sources, context, and trends. Past Performance includes current on-going (present) performance.

The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based upon the Past Performance of the proposed team as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the work required by the solicitation. Ratings will consider the Past Performance, using descriptive adjectives that most accurately define the offeror's performance risk considering all potential evaluation criteria identified in this factor. An adjectival rating for past performance will be assigned based on the confidence of success on this project that is based on recency and relevancy of projects submitted, CPARS evaluations, and personal knowledge.

Recency, Relevancy: The Government will consider the recency, relevancy and trends of the performance information while conducting its performance evaluation.

For the purpose of this solicitation, recency is performance occurring within the last five years through the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period. For example, performance information for work occurring during 2021 may have greater importance than performance information for work occurring during 2020.

In assessing relevancy, the Government may evaluate the references for similarity of the construction methods to the scope of this solicitation, (multi-discipline or specialized area), scope/type of contracts/projects, price magnitude of projects as it relates to price, area of consideration, client type and location of work performed as it relates to the location(s) of work to be performed under this contract.

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.

NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR RATING: The Government will rate an offeror's non-price proposal, with an overall rating, that combines the Past Performance and Technical evaluations.

PRICE EVALUATION: The purpose of the Price evaluation is to provide an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed price in relation to the solicitation requirements. Proposals will be evaluated in the following manner.

Proposal Price Schedule with a breakdown identifying major functional areas.

Award will be made to the offeror that is determined to provide the best value to the Government LIN 0001, all work associated with the project, if the price does not exceed available funds.

If the price for LIN 0001 exceeds available funding, award will be made to the offeror that is determined to provide the best value to the Government for LIN 0002, all work associated with the project, MINUS all resinous flooring in Building 2.

If the price for LIN 0002 exceeds available funding, award will be made to the offeror that is determined to provide the best value to the Government for LIN 0003, all work associated with the project, MINUS all resinous flooring in Building 2 AND MINUS all LVT in Building 2.

The Government reserves the right to cancel this requirement if pricing exceeds available funds or due to the needs of the Government.

Government intends to make award to a responsible Offeror submitting a conforming proposal without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

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

Those proposals evaluated as not satisfying the entire price criteria may be eliminated from consideration for award unless the Contracting Officer determines otherwise.

In the event 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.

Page 1 of Page 1 of