Amendement 4 METHODOLOGY 9-15-2022.pdf

36C78622R0020 Georgia NC; Expansion Ph 2 Construction 922CM3006 Amendment #4 9/15/2022

METHODOLOGY

The evaluation team will use the following methodology to assess Factors 1 – 4 in each Offerors proposal.

Factor 1. Using the definitions under 8.a, and the standards in Table 1a the TEB will assess each submitted project for Past Performance Recency, Relevancy, and Quality. The TEB will then assign one overall Confidence Rating using the standards in Table 1b.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a rating of Unknown Confidence (neutral).

At the government's discretion, past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government including but not limited to interviews with Project Managers, Contracting Officers, other VA personnel, local agencies and other outside sources.

Table 1b: Past Performance Confidence Rating Standards

Rating Standard

Table 1a: Past Performance: Relevancy Rating Standards

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Past performance examples (more than 1) involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. Includes VA/NCA National Cemetery projects and/or State/local/private cemetery projects exceeding $10M in construction costs. Includes construction of multiple features typical to a National Cemetery such as pre-placed crypts, columbarium niches, memorial walls, cast or natural stone columbarium caps, cast or natural stone veneers, turf (sod) placement and maintenance, tree and shrub placement and maintenance, irrigation systems with mainlines exceeding 4-inch in diameter, irrigation central control systems, new roadways, and ground preparation and grading including rock blasting operations.

Relevant

Past performance example involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Includes VA/NCA National Cemetery projects and/or State/local/private cemetery projects exceeding $5M in construction costs.

Somewhat Relevant

Past performance example involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Includes VA/NCA National Cemetery projects and/or State/local/private cemetery projects between $2M & $5M in construction costs.

Not Relevant Past performance example involved little less the $2M or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/ very relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

*Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

*In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will receive a neutral rating of Unknown Confidence for past performance. The Unknown Confidence rating will not be considered to be favorable or unfavorable.

Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4, and All Sub-factors.

The TEB will use the standards in Table 2 to evaluate the Offerors Relevant Experience, Technical Approach, and Construction/Project Management submissions and assign one overall Rating for each Factor.

Table 2: Technical Evaluation Ratings & Standards

Rating Standard

Outstanding FACTOR 2 Relevant Experience Sub-Factor 2.1, Relevant Projects Exact or essentially same projects as advertised.

Sub-Factor 2.2, Key Personnel 10 – 20 years.

Factor 3 Technical Approach Sub-Factor 3.1, Contractor Plan to Phase Demonstrates no impact to cemetery operations.

Sub-Factor 3.2, Contractor Plan to Address Rock Blasting Demonstrates ability to manage task safely within reasonable timeframe without negatively impacting cemetery operations.

Sub-Factor 3.3, Contractor Plan for Construction Access and Haul Routes Demonstrates creative approaches that safely deconflict construction traffic from visitor and daily operations traffic and avoid impact on cemetery operations.

Factor 4 CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Sub-Factor 4.1, Project Organizational Chart and Narrative Demonstrates ability to manage advertised project’s magnitude and complexity and clearly details key personnel, major sub-contractors and their personnel, and assigned responsibilities.

Sub-Factor 4.2, Capacity to Perform the Work Offeror and major sub-contractors have all resources and capacity necessary to perform the advertised project.

Sub-Factor 4.3, Quality Control & Safety Assurance Demonstrates all capabilities to assure quality and safety through systems, organization and staffing, and previous records of success and lessons learned.

Sub-Factor 4.4, Schedule Demonstrates a level 3 schedule with complete detail of the advertised project’s requirements, phases, critical path and major milestones.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good FACTOR 2 Relevant Experience Sub-Factor 2.1, Relevant Projects Essentially same projects as advertised Sub-Factor 2.2 Key Personnel 10 – 15 years

Factor 3 Technical Approach Sub-Factor 3.1 Contractor Plan to Phase Demonstrates minimal impact to cemetery operations Sub-Factor 3.2 Contractor Plan to Address Rock Blasting Demonstrates ability to manage task safely within reasonable timeframe with limited impacts to cemetery operations.

Sub-Factor 3.3 Contractor Plan for Construction Access and Haul Routes Demonstrates creative approaches that safely deconflict construction traffic from visitor and daily operations traffic and minimizes impact on cemetery operations.

Factor 4 CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT MANAGEMENT Sub-Factor 4.1 Project Organizational Chart and Narrative Demonstrates ability to manage most elements of advertised project’s magnitude and complexity and sufficiently details key personnel, major sub-contractors and their personnel, and assigned responsibilities.

Sub-Factor 4.2 Capacity to Perform the Work Offeror and major sub-contractors have majority of resources and capacity necessary to perform the advertised project.

Sub-Factor 4.3 Quality Control & Safety Assurance Demonstrates majority of capabilities needed to assure quality and safety through systems, organization and staffing, and previous records of success and lessons learned.

Sub-Factor 4.4 Schedule Demonstrates a level 3 schedule with sufficient detail of the advertised project’s requirements, phases, critical path and major milestones.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Acceptable FACTOR 2 Relevant Experience Sub-Factor 2.1, Relevant Projects Similar projects as advertised but missing acceptable level of scope.

Sub-Factor 2.2 Key Personnel 10 years.

Factor 3 Technical Approach Sub-Factor 3.1 Contractor Plan to Phase Demonstrates acceptable level of impact to cemetery operations Sub-Factor 3.2 Contractor Plan to Address Rock Blasting Demonstrates ability to manage task safely within reasonable timeframe with acceptable impacts to cemetery operations.

Sub-Factor 3.3 Contractor Plan for Construction Access and Haul Routes Demonstrates approaches that safely deconflict construction traffic from visitor and daily operations traffic with acceptable impact on cemetery operations.

Factor 4 CONSTRUCTION /PROJECT MANAGEMENT Sub-Factor 4.1 Project Organizational Chart and Narrative Demonstrates acceptable ability to manage advertised project’s magnitude and complexity and provides acceptable details for key personnel, major sub-contractors and their personnel, and assigned responsibilities.

Sub-Factor 4.2 Capacity to Perform the Work Offeror and major sub-contractors have sufficient resources and capacity necessary to perform the advertised project.

Sub-Factor 4.3 Quality Control & Safety Assurance Demonstrates most of capabilities needed to assure quality and safety through systems, organization and staffing, and previous records of success and lessons learned.

Sub-Factor 4.4 Schedule Demonstrates a level 3 schedule with sufficient detail of the advertised project’s requirements, phases, critical path and major milestones.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an acceptable approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal FACTOR 2 Relevant Experience Sub-Factor 2.1, Relevant Projects Exact same projects as advertised Sub-Factor 2.2, Key Personnel 8-10 Years

Factor 3 Technical Approach Sub-Factor 3.1, Contractor Plan to Phase Demonstrates impacts that will significantly impact cemetery operations Sub-Factor 3.2, Contractor Plan to Address Rock Blasting Demonstrates ability to manage task safely within reasonable timeframe but with significant impacts to cemetery operations.

Sub-Factor 3.3, Contractor Plan for Construction Access and Haul Routes Demonstrates approaches that safely deconflict construction traffic from visitor and daily operations traffic but with significant impact on cemetery operations.

Demonstrates marginal ability to manage advertised project’s magnitude and complexity and insufficiently details key personnel, major sub-contractors and their personnel, and assigned responsibilities.

Sub-Factor 4.2, Capacity to Perform the Work Offeror and major sub-contractors have some missing resources but acceptable capacity necessary to perform the advertised project.

Sub-Factor 4.3, Quality Control & Safety Assurance Demonstrates some of capabilities needed to assure quality and safety through systems, organization and staffing, and lacks previous records of success and lessons learned.

Sub-Factor 4.4, Schedule Demonstrates a level 3 schedule but with insufficient detail of the advertised project’s requirements, phases, critical path and major milestones.

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high

Unacceptable FACTOR 2 Relevant Experience Sub-Factor 2.1, Relevant Projects No relevant projects to project advertised Sub-Factor 2.2, Key Personnel Less than 8 years

Factor 3 Technical Approach Sub-Factor 3.1, Contractor Plan to Phase Demonstrates impacts that will severely impact cemetery operations Sub-Factor 3.2, Contractor Plan to Address Rock Blasting Does not demonstrate ability to manage task safely within reasonable timeframe and severely impacts cemetery operations.

Sub-Factor 3.3, Contractor Plan for Construction Access and Haul Routes

Does not demonstrate approaches that safely deconflict construction traffic from visitor and daily operations traffic and provides unacceptable impact on cemetery operations.

Demonstrates inadequate ability to manage advertised project’s magnitude and complexity and insufficiently details key personnel, major sub-contractors and their personnel, and assigned responsibilities.

Sub-Factor 4.2, Capacity to Perform the Work Offeror and major sub-contractors have inadequate resources and capacity necessary to perform the advertised project.

Sub-Factor 4.3, Quality Control & Safety Assurance Demonstrates insufficient capabilities needed to assure quality and safety through systems, organization, and staffing, and has no previous records of success and lessons learned.

Sub-Factor 4.4, Schedule Does not demonstrate a level 3 schedule.

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is not awardable.

PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND RATING STANDARDS

The Base Bid items and Option CLINs, if used, are listed on the Offer Schedule located behind form SF1442 in the solicitation. The bid Additives are listed in order of priority (i.e Additive #1 is highest priority, Additive #2 is second highest priority, and so on)

Award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of 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 or clerical errors.

All work is to be performed within the period of performance specified in the solicitation.

Offerors are advised the Tradeoff process (Reference FAR 15.101-1) will be used to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

The Government will evaluate the following aspects of the Offeror’s price proposal 1) reasonableness, 2) completeness, 3) price.

Reasonableness:

A fair and reasonable price is the price that a prudent businessperson would pay for an item or service under competitive market conditions, given a reasonable knowledge of the marketplace.

The Federal Acquisition Regulations clearly establish the need to determine a price fair and reasonable prior to a Government Contracting Officer or Ordering Officer making a contract award.

The Government intends to perform Price Analysis pursuant to FAR subpart 15.4 for all offers received. The Government’s planned price analysis method anticipates adequate price competition will exist to establish price reasonableness.

In the unlikely event that adequate price competition does not exist, the Government may use any other method permitted under FAR Part 15.404-1 to determine price reasonableness.

Completeness:

The Government will review Offeror’s pricing proposals for completeness and accuracy. The Government will verify each proposal includes prices for all CLIN Items. The Government will also perform a general review of the submission to verify math calculations in the schedules. Based upon proposed price for the CLIN Items, a determination will be made as to whether the Offeror properly understands the price proposal instructions and properly completed the pricing tables.

Price:

Base Bid & Additive line item (CLIN #) prices in the Offer Schedule shall be evaluated to determine the items to be awarded. The evaluation shall be made as follows—

Establishing a competitive range:

The proposals will be evaluate in accordance with 15.305(a), and, if discussions are to be conducted, then establish the competitive range. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section. IAW 15.306 (c) Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.

All proposals shall be evaluated on the Base Bid line items, plus (in the order stated in the list of priorities in the bid schedule) those additive line items that provide the most features within the funds determined available.

All proposals shall be evaluated on the basis of the Base Bid line items & the same additive line items.

If adding another item from the Offer Schedule list of priorities would make the award exceed the available funds for all offerors, the Contracting Officer will skip that item and go to the next item from the Offer Schedule of priorities; and

Add that next item if an award may be made that includes that line item and is within the available funds.

Once the Contracting Officer has determined which Offer Schedule line items will be the basis for the evaluation of all proposals received, each offeror’s aggregate price for those line items will carried forward to the Contracting Officer’s Tradeoff Analysis and Best Value Determination.