Amendment 0003 Technical Evaluation Factors-Best Value_ Trade Off 2025 03 04.pdf

Technical Evaluation Factors - Best Value / Trade Off

AFRH - Sheridan Building Renovation, Building ID# DC0527ZZ ( AFRHDC-45270)

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

1. The Government will award a contract resulting from this Solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the Solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, Total Evaluated Price (See Attachment) and other factors considered. In addition to Total Evaluated Price, the following non-price factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

a. Past Experience

b. Past Performance on Similar Projects

c. Key Personnel Experience and Qualifications

d. Management Approach

2. Tradeoff information

The Government intends to use the trade-off process in selecting an offer that is most advantageous to the Government. The trade-off process is a method of evaluating price and other factors as specified in the solicitation to select the offer that provides the best value to the Government. The process permits trade-offs among price and technical factors. Because the trade-off process allows award to the offeror that provides the government with the best value, it allows the government to accept other than the highest technically rated offer and other than the lowest priced offer. Technical evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are approximately equal to cost or price. Proposals will be arrayed in accordance with technical ratings and prices.

The award may be made without discussions of proposals, per FAR 15.306 (3).

Offerors should submit initial proposals on the most favorable terms from a technical and price standpoint. The evaluation process will be conducted by the Contracting Officer and the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) in accordance with FAR 15.1, Source Selection Processes and Techniques.

EVALUATION FACTOR A: PAST EXPERIENCE

Maximum Raw Score = 100 Points (SEE ATTACHMENT A)

Standard for Evaluation:

1. This factor considers the extent of the offeror's past experience performing contracts that are similar in scope to the AFRH Sheridan Building Renovation.

2. The Government will consider whether the offeror has demonstrated experience within the past ten (10) years and coordinating work within facilities requirements that are similar in size and scope as the project. Similarities include phased renovation work in occupied Residential Facilities and/or Assisted Living Facilities.

Contracts that are more similar to this contract will receive more favorable experience. Experience should demonstrate satisfaction of the minimum requirement below.

3. Minimum Requirements: Projects offered must have been performed in a multi-story facility with a total construction value not less than $50,000,000 $100,000,000.00 , and a total interior area not less than 150,000 SF. If the offeror has not had at least ten (10) years’ experience as a general contractor in the management, oversight, and coordination of multiple disciplines and construction task activities in large commercial or governmental facilities, the offeror will be considered technically deficient.

4. Submittal Required by Offeror: Submit three (no more, no less) projects, confirming the above and including the following information:

a. Name of Contract and Owner or Contracting Agency

b. Initial Award Value and Final Value

c. Initial Award Date, Total Duration and Date of Substantial Completion.

d. Total Interior Renovated Area (SF) and number of floors/levels.

e. Project description identifying major characteristics that confirm similarities to this project as noted above. Identify major scope items, and any significant actions or unique performance circumstances involved in implementation.

5. Submission Standards:

a. Excellent: The standard is met when the Offeror submits three (3) projects, all meeting all of the similar project criteria noted above. All have been substantially completed within the past six (6) years. There are no noticeable weaknesses.

b. Good: The standard is met when the Offeror submits three (3) similar projects where two (2) projects meet all similar project criteria, at least two (2) of the projects must have been substantially completed within the past six (6) years.

There are no significant weaknesses.

c. Acceptable: The standard is met when the Offeror submits three (3) projects.

At least one (1) of the projects must have been substantially completed within the past ten (10) years. There are no significant weaknesses and may contain minor/correctable weaknesses.

d. Unacceptable: The standard is met when the offeror fails to submit three (3) projects. All or part of the responses lack essential information necessary to substantiate compliance with similar project qualities. The criteria/requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal, or the response contained one or more deficiencies.

EVALUATION FACTOR B: PAST PERFORMANCE

Standard for Evaluation:

1. This factor considers the past performance of contracts identified under the Past Experience Factor. This factor will be based upon the responses from the offeror and references identified by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to use other government data available in its assessment of the offeror's past performance. In accordance with FAR 15. 306, the offeror will be given the opportunity to respond to negative past performance information. Past performance should reflect satisfaction of the minimum requirement below.

2. The Government will consider the quality of past performance in carrying out work of a similarly complex nature regarding quality of services rendered, including budget control, timeliness, business integrity and technical success. The effectiveness of the offerors' management of administrative aspects of performance, willingness to cooperate with or assist with routine matters, and unexpected difficulties will be evaluated.

3. Minimum Requirement: If the offeror has not demonstrated successful past performance as a general contractor in the three proposed projects in Evaluation Factor A in delivering quality of service, budget controls, timeliness, during the management, oversight, and coordination of multiple disciplines and construction task activities in a large commercial or governmental facility, the offeror will be considered technically deficient.

4. Submittal Required by Offeror: For each project identified in response to Past Experience, provide CPARS evaluation sheet, at least two references, including names, phone numbers and email addresses. At least one reference must be with the owner or contracting agency. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of the contact information and failure to provide accurate information may be grounds for technical deficiency. In addition, offerors are encouraged to provide additional information on problems encountered during performance and corrective action.

Note: SSEB panel members may contact at least two (2) of the references provided.

If considered appropriate, additional references may be contacted. The documentation should be reviewed by all evaluators and proposals scored accordingly.

5. Submission Standards:

a. Excellent: The standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates superior performance through submission of Exceptional ratings or recommendations for at least two (2) of the three (3) projects submitted under Factor A - Past Experience. All references indicate that they would contract with the Offeror again. Any CPARS ratings provided are Exceptional. There are no recognized weaknesses.

b. Good: The standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates successful performance through submission of Exemplary ratings or recommendations for at least two (2) of the three (3) projects submitted under Factor A - Past Experience. The majority of references indicate that they would contract with the Offeror again. Any CPARS ratings provided are Very Good. There are no noticeable weaknesses.

c. Acceptable: The standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates satisfactory performance through submission of ratings or recommendations for the three

(3) projects submitted under Factor A - Past Experience. The majority of references indicate that they would contract with the Offeror again. There are no significant weaknesses. Any CPARS rating provided are Satisfactory or Marginal.

d. Unacceptable: The standard is met when the offeror fails to submit any ratings or recommendations for each of the three (3) projects submitted under Factor A - Past Experience. If the Offeror receives any CPARS ratings noting the offeror as Unsatisfactory, or if the reference identifies any performance concerns which might be viewed as disadvantageous by the SSEB, or if the reference would not contract with the Offeror again, then the Offeror shall be deemed Unacceptable.

EVALUATION FACTOR C: KEY PERSONNEL

Standard for Evaluation:

1. This factor considers the experience of the Key Personnel who will have major project responsibilities and/or who will provide unusual or unique capabilities and whose availability is considered critical to the accomplishment of required services.

The Project Manager , Quality Control Manager , General Superintendent and Health, Safety & Environmental Officer are considered by the Government to be key personnel. All key personnel shall bear no other responsibilities except for that attributable to the assigned full-time roles above.

2. The key persons are identified by names and titles with proposed specific duties and responsibilities clearly assigned in the proposal.

a. The Project Manager must have a minimum of ten (10) years specialized experience as a project manager for general contractors on projects similar to that noted in Evaluation Factor A. The individual shall possess a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited undergraduate program in the Architecture, Engineering or Construction Management fields. In lieu of meeting the education component, the Project Manager must have at least fifteen (15) years of Project Management experience. The Project Manager must have completed within the last five (5) years: OSHA 30 HR Construction Safety & Health Course or equivalent training. The resume shall include sufficient explanation as to why this person is qualified and a “good fit” for the proposed position. A Certified Construction Manager (CCM) certification from the CMAA is considered a plus.

b. The Quality Control Manager must have a minimum of ten (10) years’ experience specifically in a lead quality control capacity for general contractors on projects similar to that noted in Evaluation Factor A. The individual shall possess a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited undergraduate program in the Architecture, Engineering or Construction Management fields. In lieu of meeting the education component, the QC Manager must have at least fifteen (15) years of quality control experience.

The Quality Control Manager must have completed within the last five (5) years: OSHA 30 HR Construction Safety & Health Course or equivalent training. The resume shall include sufficient explanation as to why this person is qualified and a “good fit” for the proposed position. A Certified Construction Manager (CCM) certification from the CMAA is considered a plus.

c. The General Superintendent must have a minimum of ten (10) years’ experience as a general superintendent for general contractors on projects similar to that noted in Evaluation Factor A. The individual shall possess a

Bachelor’s degree from an accredited undergraduate program with a Bachelor of Science Degree in the Architecture, Engineering or Construction Management fields. In lieu of meeting the education component, the Superintendent must have at least twenty (20) years of Superintendent experience. The Superintendent must have completed within the last five (5) years: OSHA 30 HR Construction Safety & Health Course or equivalent training, and First Aid training. The resume includes sufficient explanation as to why this person is qualified and a “good fit” for the proposed position. The extent of availability and corporate commitment of this key person shall be clearly demonstrated.

d. The Health, Safety & Environmental Officer must have experience specifically in a lead safety capacity for general contractors on projects similar to that noted in Evaluation Factor C. Minimum training and experience shall include at least two of the following:

i. A degree in Health, Safety, and Environmental Management (or equivalent) with 3 years or more of field experience in the safety profession,

ii. Seven (7) or more years’ experience as a safety professional, of which four (4) or more must be in construction safety,

iii. Advanced technical training or HSE certifications such as CSP, ASP, CHST, OHST, etc.

iv. The individual must have completed within the last five (5) years:

OSHA 30 HR Construction Safety Course or equivalent, as well as First Aid and CPR training. A proficient knowledge of OSHA regulations, safety management and hazard communications and controls shall be demonstrated.

3. Submittal Required by Offeror: The offeror shall provide resumes for key personnel, listing current state licenses, professional registrations, and trade memberships. The license(s) shall conform to standard designations in listing an effective date and expiration or thru date, if applicable. Identify at least two but not more than four projects that demonstrate technical skills and ability. Involvement in any of the projects proposed in Evaluation Factor A is considered a plus. Describe technical knowledge and ability to plan and implement features that protected personnel and property, described how those procedures were executed, and how well it supported and safeguarded the project goals.

4. Submission Standards:

a. Excellent: The standard is met when all minimum submission requirements are satisfied, and at least three (3) of the four (4) following attributes are met:

i. The Project Manager and General Superintendent both have more than twenty (20) years’ experience and both have worked on at least one (1) of the three (3) projects submitted under Factor A - Past Experience.

ii. The offeror has provided documentation that sufficiently demonstrates the Project Manager and General Superintendent both possess superior skills and experience that would greatly benefit the AFRH project.

iii. Project Manager currently possesses CCM designations.

iv. The Health, Safety & Environmental Officer meets at least three (3) of the four (4) criteria noted and has more than ten (10) years’ experience in a construction safety environment.

b. Good: The standard is met when all minimum submission requirements are satisfied, and, at least three (3) of the four (4) following attributes are met:

i. The Project Manager and General Superintendent have no less than fifteen (15) and twenty (20) years’ experience, respectively, and the offeror has provided documentation that sufficiently demonstrates the Project Manager and General Superintendent both possess appropriate experience on similar projects that would greatly benefit the AFRH project.

ii. At least two (2) key personnel have worked on no less than one (1) of the three (3) projects submitted under Evaluation Factor A: Past Experience.

iii. Project Manager currently possesses a CCM designation.

iv. The Health and Safety Officer meets at least three (3) of the four (4) criteria noted and has more than seven (7) years’ experience in a construction safety environment.

c. Acceptable: The standard is met when submission criteria for all key personnel satisfies all minimum requirements. There are no significant weaknesses and may contain minor/correctable weaknesses.

d. Unacceptable: The standard is met when the response lacks essential information to substantiate the data presented to the extent that the criteria/requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal.

Minimum requirements are not satisfied for any of the four key personnel.

EVALUATION FACTOR D: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Standard for Evaluation:

1. This factor considers the offeror's ability to manage performance of the contract. The Government will consider whether the organization charts and staffing plan demonstrate adequate resources and demonstrate the offeror’s staffing levels to perform the scope of work as outlined in this solicitation. Whether resumes provided demonstrate qualified personnel including satisfaction of the minimum requirements below. Management qualifications of the proposed staff that are more similar to those required by this contract shall be more favorable evaluated. The Government will consider whether the firm has demonstrated how it will perform the functions required by the scope of this contract, specifically, the contract information regarding project coordination, relationship building, subcontractor coordination, demolition, installation, testing and commissioning, and post-event activities that demonstrate significant management and oversight to ensure proper contract administration. The Government will consider whether the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the Project Management skills required for the successful completion of this contract.

2. Minimum Requirement: If the Offeror fails to provide each of the three proposed criterion below, the offer will be considered technically deficient.

3. Submittal shall include under this criterion:

a. Staffing Plan: Provide a staffing plan for the Offeror’s management and coordination of the work, and major subcontractors. The staffing plan shall include i) an organizational chart and ii) a narrative description of roles and responsibilities of all staff required for the successful performance of the work, including self-performed and subcontracted trades. The Staffing Plan shall identify the following major subcontractors at a minimum: Concrete, Mechanical, Sprinkler & Fire Protection, and Electrical.

b. Quality Control (QC) Plan: The Offeror shall provide a QC plan tailored to the AFRH project. The written plan must contain Offeror's methodology for controlling quality, including work by subcontractors, identifying extent of testing and inspections efforts and tracking sustainability requirements. The QC Plan shall be the basis by which the successful Offeror shall develop the final project QC Plan.

c. Schedule Control: The Offeror shall submit: i) a critical path method (CPM) schedule and, ii) a narrative describing the Offeror’s approach to design and construction schedule control. The CPM schedule shall contain no more than 100 activities, consistent with the scope identified in the contract documents.

The CPM schedule shall be graphical in nature. The schedule may be presented on double-sided 11”x17” paper, as long as the size and format of all information communicated is legible. Information provided by the Offeror that is illegible may result in a lower evaluation score.

4. Each submittal item above shall be written in a manner that corresponds to the unique characteristics of this project. The Offeror’s response to this evaluation factor (including charts and narratives) shall become part of the contract awarded to the successful Offeror.

5. Submittal Standards:

a. Excellent: The standard is met when the Offeror’s submission demonstrates a clear and concise understanding of the complexity of the work to be performed and the means to successfully complete a project of this magnitude under budgetary and time constraints. The Offeror must have addressed all three submittal topics in great detail, including a phasing strategy with substantiation, detail, and preparedness. The Offeror must address all elements for each category described in each of the topics, providing details on how these elements will be applied to the AFRH project with a comprehensive and detailed approach that uses industry-standard tools and methodologies in all areas. The Offeror identified risks associated with the AFRH project and proposed solutions that they would undertake in subjects related to the topics named in this Factor. The approach is responsive and highly effective, efficient and practical. It may contain several innovative and cost effective ideas. There are no noticeable weaknesses.

b. Good: The standard is met when the Offeror submits a plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the complexity of the work to be performed and the means to successfully complete a project of this magnitude under budgetary and time constraints. The Offeror must have addressed all three submittal topics in detail, including a phasing strategy with substantiation, detail, and preparedness. The Offeror has provided details on how these elements will be applied to the AFRH project with a detailed approach in all areas. The approach is responsive and practical. There are no noticeable weaknesses.

c. Acceptable: The standard is met when the Offeror submits the requested plans that demonstrate an understanding of the complexity of the work and the means to successfully complete a project of this magnitude under budgetary and time constraints. There are no significant weaknesses and may contain minor/correctable weaknesses.

d. Unacceptable: The standard is met when the offeror fails to sufficiently address the minimum submission criteria. The response lacks essential information to substantiate the data presented and demonstrate the contractor’s understanding of AFRH project requirements. The response contains one or more deficiencies in at least two (2) of the three (3) submission categories.

ATTACHMENT A - SCORING GUIDELINES

Score each factor in accordance with the following guidelines:

GENERAL ADJECTIVAL RATING

EXCELLENT (9-10) - The proposal exceeds, in many aspects, the standards for submission and evaluation, with little to no apparent weaknesses.

GOOD (6-8) - The proposal exceeds, to varying degrees, many requirements identified in the standards for submission and evaluation.

NEUTRAL (5) - ONLY USED TO RATE PROPOSALS WITH NO RELEVANT PAST

PERFORMANCE PER FAR 15.305.

ACCEPTABLE (3-4) - The proposal meets the minimum performance and compliance standards acceptable for evaluation.

UNACCEPTABLE (0-2) - The proposal has significant shortcomings when measured against submission requirements and standards for evaluation.

ATTACHMENT B - TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS WEIGHTING

FACTOR WEIGHT

A. PAST EXPERIENCE 20%

B. PAST PERFORMANCE 30%

C. KEY PERSONNEL 30%

D. MANAGEMENT APPROACH 20%

TOTAL 100%