Attachment 4- Evaluation Methodology Final.pdf

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 1 of 10

RFQ #: 693JF720R000017

Attachment 4- Evaluation Methodology

BASIS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

The source selection factors for this procurement are listed below in descending order of importance. Factors 1 through 5 are primary. Factor 6 is secondary and will only be used as a tie-breaker among technically equal firms. Primary factors will be assigned a rating from "excellent" to "unacceptable", based on the risk to the Government that the film will successfully perform that evaluated factor. An overall rating will also be applied to the response using the same rating scale. Responses failing to respond or provide complete information for each factor as required by this solicitation will be determined non-compliant and will be removed from fu1iher consideration. After all ratings have been assigned, films will be ranked in order of the most highly qualified according to the selection criteria listed below, and interviews may be held with the top five (5) most highly qualified films.

For purposes of this solicitation, a stand-alone contract is considered one project. Separating activities performed under a contract or task order will not be considered multiple projects;

conversely, combining activities performed under separate contracts or task orders to produce a single project will not be considered. A single task under an Indefinite Delivery Contract is considered a project, not an Indefinite Delivery Contract itself. Projects in which the AE Service is not 100% complete will not be evaluated.

The evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

There are a total of six (6) factors and associated elements, listed in descending order of importance that will be evaluated.

Specific Criteria:

Evaluation

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 2 of 10

Technical Factors

Factor #1 - Professional Qualifications

Resumes of Key Personnel: Firms must have, either in-house or through consultants or subcontractors, the disciplines listed below. To demonstrate qualifications, resumes for persons filling these disciplines are to be provided in Section E. Each resume shall not exceed one page in length. All Professional Registrations, Licensures and/or Certifications must state certification numbers and expiration dates (as applicable). Specialist disciplines shall have a degree in engineering, geology, or science from an accredited university and training in the area of specialization. In Block 13, the role listed must use the exact same discipline nomenclature as listed below. If an individual will serve in more than one role, then all disciplines shall be clearly indicated in Block 13. The content of Section E is not to be altered and all items within Section E shall be answered completely.

Additionally, all Key Personnel must be shown on the organizational chart in Section D. The following disciplines are required:

Project/Program Management Architecture Structural Engineering Mechanical Engineering Electrical Engineering Civil Engineering Landscape Architecture Fire Suppression Engineering Construction Cost Estimating Construction Inspection (Title II Quality Assurance) Surveying

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 3 of 10

Relevant Projects: All Key Personnel are required to have a minimum of ten (10) years of project experience in their discipline demonstrated by projects with scope, magnitude, and complexity comparable to this solicitation. The definition of a project is as noted in 'Selection Criteria' above.

Relevant projects are those that reflect experience performing the respective discipline. Relevant Project information should be brief and highlight specific roles and tasks performed by the Key Personnel, Project Type, Scope, and Costs. No more than five (5) projects should be listed for each resume, and each project listed must have been completed within five (5) years of publication of this solicitation announcement. (Note: The projects provided for this factor may also be used to address Factor 2.)

The evaluation of Factor 1 will take into consideration the education and current registration, licensure or certification(s), as applicable, of each person named for each discipline and that person's longevity with the firm named in Block 15. It will also take into consideration the person's relevant project experience provided in Block 19.

More weight will be given to experience on projects that are of scope, magnitude, and complexity similar to that described in the SOW. This factor may be assessed Strengths or Weaknesses, as appropriate. Only the Key Personnel disciplines requested in this solicitation will be evaluated.

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 4 of 10

Factor #2 - Specialized Experience and Technical Competence

For Factor 2, firms are to demonstrate specialized experience and technical competence for all products and studies associated with mechanical, electrical, structural, architectural, plumbing, etc. as defined in 40 U.S.C. 1101 and FAR 2.101 for AE Services. This factor considers specialized experience and technical competence to support the USMMA, specific to performing services similar to those described above in the SOW.

In Section F, firms are to submit up to a maximum of three (3) projects that best illustrate the proposed team's qualifications for award of a contract. (Note: The projects provided for Factor 1 may also be used to address this factor, however, not by reference only.) For each project use only one page and note the contract or task order number, as applicable. The content of Section F is not to be altered and all items within Section F shall be answered completely. The projects submitted shall specifically address the requirements stated in the SOW.

All projects must have been completed within five (5) years of publication of this solicitation announcement (see Block 22). At least one (l) of the projects presented must show that the firm (the firm submitting the SF330 as the prime contractor), whether as a prime contractor or subcontractor, performed the majority (>50%) of the work on the project. To demonstrate such performance, firms are to state the percentage of work they performed. If a proposed subcontractor also worked on the project, state the percentage of work performed by the firm, and/or the percentage of work performed by each proposed subcontractor. Clearly identify the Project Number (as indicated above), Type and the firm's role on the project. In Block 24, "cost" is the total value of the project, not simply the value of the work performed by the firm and/or any proposed subcontractor. The Government reserves the right to review any official performance evaluation system of records to inform its source selection.

decision. When completing Section G, in Block 26, along with the name of key personnel, include the firm with whom the person is or was associated at the time the project was performed.

To demonstrate quality of past performance, for each project the Firm must have the client provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or the Firm may provide a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). If a PPQ is provided and there is a CPAR, the CPAR rating will govern. Quality of past performance information for key projects may be placed in Part II. The Government reserves the right to review any official performance evaluation system of records to inform its source selection decision. When completing Section G, in Block 26, along with the name of key personnel, include the firm with whom the person is or was associated at the time the project was performed.

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 5 of 10

Those firms submitting as Joint Ventures (N) must follow the same procedures as any other firm with the following exception. If the N (the firm) cannot provide at least two (2) projects that demonstrate performance by the N of 50% or more of a project, as either a prime contractor or subcontractor, the N may provide projects performed by any partner of the offering JV that reflect performance of 50% or more of a project, as either a prime contractor or subcontractor.

Of the projects submitted as prescribed above, relevant projects are those that reflect the specialized experience and technical competence of the firm and/or proposed subcontractor(s), as prime contractors or subcontractors, performing services similar to those described above in the SOW. More weight will be given to experience with projects that are of scope, magnitude, and complexity similar to that described above in the SOW. This factor may be assessed Strengths or Weaknesses, as appropriate.

Factor #3- Work Management

In Part I, Section H, the firm must provide a proposed work management plan demonstrating its team's breadth of knowledge and experience with federal buildings.

The narrative should describe the corporate approach, driving criteria or potential constraints, and examples of successful performance. The narrative should specifically discuss knowledge of, and experience with, work management planning to include quality management, subcontractor management, prior experience of the prime firm and any significant consultant, version control management, proactive internal and external communication protocols, and independent submittal review processes in the context of providing services under multiple task orders. This factor may be assessed Strengths or Weaknesses, as appropriate.

Factor #4 - Capacity to Accomplish the Work

All firms are to clearly demonstrate the capacity to accomplish the work efficiently and effectively within the PoP. This factor may be assessed Strengths or Weaknesses, as appropriate.

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 6 of 10

Factor #6 - Geographic Location

Firms will be evaluated on the locations of their office or offices that will be performing the work under this contract and demonstrated knowledge of the general geographic area of the proposed work.

1. Provide the location of the office(s) that will be performing the work for this geographic area, including main offices, branch offices, and offices of team members.

2. Provide a narrative describing the team's knowledge of this geographic area.

3. Provide a narrative to describe the team's ability to provide timely responses to requests for on-site support and how conflicts in capacity are prioritized. Include both primary and sub-contractor's support as required.

Evaluation of firms will include consideration of the firm's location and familiarity within this geographic area. Teams with offices and qualified personnel located within a 75 mile radius of the Kings Point, New York area that demonstrate their knowledge and ability to provide timely and cost effective service will be considered more favorably.

Technical Evaluation Rating

Based on the responses in the Standard Form 330, firms will be ranked in order of the most highly qualified.

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 7 of 10

Past Performance

Factor #5 - Past Performance

This factor will address how the experience of the firm is related to the key questions and deliverables provided in the Statement of Work (see Attachment 1).

Firms shall demonstrate in narrative form (Narrative) projects which exhibit the firm's quality of work, cost control, scheduling, and the elements listed below. Past Performance history is not to be limited to information presented in Factor 2. Past performance will be evaluated in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedule, as described in FAR section 36.602-1(4).

(a) The USMMA offices will not provide any past and present performance reference for this response, although, as noted above, the Government may use its own knowledge in evaluating past performance. Firms are prohibited from requesting past and present performance references from any USMMA staff.

(b) Contractor is required to submit a maximum of three (3) relevant and recent (within the past three years of the date of this Solicitation) references related to AE work that are similar in size, scope, and complexity with the requirements described in the Solicitation. Utilizing Attachment 3 - Present/Past Performance Questionnaire, contractors are to contact their references and request that they submit a past and present performance evaluation directly to the CO. PPQs received after the response due date will not be considered. Alternatively, firms may submit CPARs for corresponding Narrative projects. If both a PPQ and a CPAR are provided, the CPAR rating will govern.

(c) The Government will consider the following elements of past performance:

• Quality of Service and Deliverables: Assess the contractor's conformance to contract requirements and standards of service and work products/deliverables

• Project Management: Assess the contractor's management of the project and effectiveness of the engagement team. Assess the integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract, specifically the scheduling controls, timeliness and quality of problem identification, collective action plans

• Business Relations: Assess the contractor's performance in customer service, the contractor's history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, responsiveness to customer needs, and customer satisfaction

• Cost Control: Assess the contractor's effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling costs

• Employee Qualifications and Skills: Assess the contractor's personnel

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 8 of 10 qualifications, skills, and knowledge in performing AE.

• Team Composition: Assess the contractor's effectiveness in transitioning resources and personnel and hiring qualified workforce personnel

(d) The Past Performance Panel will use the below adjectival definitions as guidelines in determining a past performance Confidence rating

TABLE 1- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

HIGH CONFIDENCE Based on the Firm's performance record, the Government has high confidence the Firm will successfully perform the required effort.

SIGNIFICANT

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Firm's performance record, the Government has significant confidence the Firm will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Firm's performance record, the Government has satisfactory confidence the Firm will successfully perform the required effort.

Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

UNKNOWN/NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No relevant performance record is identifiable or past performance is not available. Similar to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) and (iv).

LITTLE CONFIDENCE Based on the Firm's performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Firm will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Firm's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the Firm will successfully perform the required effort.

Each Firm will receive one of the following Performance Confidence:

The Performance Confidence Assessment is based upon the evaluation of the Firm's past information, first, as it relates to the recency and relevance level of the information. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. Relevancy is determined by a comparison of the size, scope, and complexity of the cited contract

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 9 of 10 with the requirements set forth in the Solicitation. A strong record of relevant past performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Recency: Recency is defined as contracts completed or ongoing within the past

.three (3) years from the date that the Solicitation was issued. Ongoing programs must have begun no later than one year before the formal release of the Solicitation.

Relevancy: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. The main assessment of relevancy focuses on the stated efforts compared to the requirements set forth in the Solicitation. In order to be considered Relevant the effort must have been by the same division or business unit that is being proposed to perform the requirement. Relevance of an effort in which the Firm participated under a joint venture arrangement will be determined based on the work performed by the Firm. If a third party or customer cannot discern what work the Firm performed, this effort will not be considered relevant. A single confidence assessment of the Firm's past performance (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its subcontractors' and teaming partners' involvement) will be made.

The Government may consider the Firm's (including subcontractors) past performance in aggregate, rather than on an effort (contract) by effort basis. This takes into consideration joint ventures or teaming arrangements in which the proposing partners participated, either with each other or with other entities, in performing work similar to that which they are proposing to perform for the current effort. For example, the Firm is a joint venture where there are four partners that share equally in the proposed effort. They established the joint venture for this requirement so past performance information is not available on the joint venture, but is available on each of the partners.

Past performance on each of the partners may be only somewhat relevant because work is not of similar scope of the cited past performance project and qualifications required to perform, the current requirement. However, when the partners' past performance is viewed in the aggregate, the past performance information may more accurately reflect a higher rating. The Firm shall identify the specific contracts submitted as an aggregate for evaluation purposes in the Contractor's Past Performance Information Document. Assessments of Relevancy will be based on the following:

Midshipmen Activity Center Architecture and Engineering Design Page 10 of 10

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

-Present/past performance contractual effort involved only some of the scope and qualifications required to perform the current requirements.

NOT

RELEVANT

-Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the scope and qualifications required to perform the current

B. Interviews with Highest Ranked Principal AE Firm:

The evaluation board may write a list of questions for interviews with the five (5) highest ranking Principal AE Firms and furnish to the CO. The CO will schedule and facilitate interviews with the highest ranking Principal AE Firms, if necessary.

Interviews: As required by acquisition regulations, interviews for the purpose of discussing prospective firm qualifications will be conducted by the AE Evaluation Board (Board). Interviews will be held with the five (5) firms deemed by the Board to be the most highly qualified for award.

Interviews will be conducted by telephone and or face to face and will most likely occur the same week that the Board convenes. Phone calls and personal visits for the purpose of discussing this solicitation are not allowed.

The CO, in coordination with the TEP chairperson, shall establish a date for submission of all the evaluation reports.

RATING DEFINITION

VERY

RELEVANT

- Present/past performance effort involved is of the same or greater scope and requires the same or greater qualifications required to perform the current requirements.

RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved is similar in scope and qualifications required to perform the current requirements.