70Z08426RDL950001R0001 Evaluation Factors.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS

United States Coast Guard (USCG) Training Center (TRACEN)

Cape May Family Housing Services

Solicitation Number: 70Z08426RDL950001 Amendment Number: R0001 Effective Date: 6 November 2025 Issued By:

United States Coast Guard Operational Logistics Command (LOGCOM) Office of Procurement and Contracting Regional Contracting Northeast Branch (LOG-95)

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, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical approach to determine the degree to which the proposal demonstrates specific knowledge, capability, and experience at the corporate level for the prime contractor in performing all aspects of the Statement of Work (SOW). The evaluation will focus on the Offeror's ability to effectively address the requirements outlined in the SOW, including the methods, processes, and resources proposed to achieve the objectives.

1.1: Technical Capabilities: The selection team will evaluate the technical capabilities according to the degree to which each offeror’s submission indicates the Offeror understands the requirements, capability, and experience to perform all services described in the SOW. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed narrative and examples of experience provided to determine how well the Offeror understands and is able to perform the requirements of the SOW and the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound understanding and ability to perform the requirements will be assigned a strength.

The Government will evaluate the quality of the prime contractor's ability to successfully perform the contract based on a combination of corporate experience and technical competence that the Offeror has and how it relates to the work described in this solicitation will be considered, and the dollar value will be considered. Higher consideration will be given to offerors who have worked on similar Military or Federal contracts; experience in dealing successfully with Labor Unions and negotiating Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs);

work on large multifunction contracts; and/or experience with innovative solutions.

1.2: Emergency Response The Government shall assess the contractor's ability to respond to emergencies by looking at the proximity of after-hours personnel, ability to receive after-hours calls, and time it takes to organize initial action to the event. The contractor needs to be aware that all utilities are owned and maintained by the Government, this assessment will include emergency response for utility scale emergencies at the sites. The contractor shall present their ability to handle situations that occur during emergency situations.

Factor 2: Management Approach:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Management Plan provides an integrated team with a coordinated approach to work performance, demonstrates a clear understanding of contract reporting requirements, and assures quality, long-term support. Each Offeror’s quote will be assessed to determine the feasibility of the quoted management approach for task achievement and the depth of understanding represented by that approach. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the quote addresses the key elements of Approach, Organization, and Transition.

2.1: Organizational Structure:

The government will assess the degree to which the offeror’s organizational structure meets the requirements of key personnel referenced under the Contractor Personnel section of the Statement of Work, and that demonstrates an organizational structure that can show ability to provide adequate strength and a higher quality workforce. At a minimum, this shall include a Project manager to oversee operations onsite at Training Center Cape May.

Staffing Plan: The Government will assess the degree to which the adequacy of the staffing numbers and the appropriateness of qualifications in the position descriptions for the site supervisor and/or contract manager demonstrate that the requirements of the SOW can be met.

2.2 Personnel Approach:

The Government will evaluate the degree to which resumes demonstrate the Offeror’s quoted personnel possess the knowledge and ability to successfully meet requirements of the SOW (inclusive of all Attachments and Appendices and Technical Exhibits); the relevant experience the quoted personnel have in performing each of the SOW areas and the level of the personnel’s relevant education and training; and the overall quality of Key Personnel quoted. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the quoted labor mix supports the technical approach utilized in the Offeror’s quote. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Staffing Plan demonstrates the ability to successfully meet the requirements of the SOW.

The qualifications listed in each individual quoted Key Personnel resume, not the specific individual, are the materially relevant aspects of the planned Key Personnel partially forming the basis of the award. Therefore, even if proposed individual Key Personnel becomes unavailable to the Offeror between proposal submission and award, the Government will evaluate and make its award decision based on the qualifications listed on the proposed resume. When the Government awards a contract under those circumstances, the Government will require the awardee to use the qualifications listed on the relevant quoted Key Personnel resume as the basis for replacing that individual during contract performance.

2.3: Phase In/Phase Out Subfactor:

The Phase In/Phase Out Plan will be used to evaluate each Offeror’s capability to provide an effective transition in conjunction with and as the incumbent Contractor. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the phase in/phase out processes and ability to effectively transition into and out of contract performance. Offerors that demonstrate greater understanding and ability to transition will be give more favorable consideration. For this evaluation process, the evaluators shall assign adjectival ratings for the quality assessment for each individual evaluation factor (Technical Approach, Management Approach)

Exceptional Exceeds the RFP requirements. The proposal yields significant benefits to the Government. Weaknesses, if any, are of small impact.

No significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Very Good Exceeds the RFP requirements. The proposal yields some benefits to the Government. Weaknesses, if any, are of small impact. NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Satisfactory Meets all RFP requirements. The proposal offers no significant benefits beyond the stated requirements. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist.

Marginal Minimally meets the minimum RFP requirement(s) or has one or more significant weaknesses. Significant weaknesses are correctable without major proposal revisions.

Unsatisfactory Fails to meet the minimum RFP requirement(s). The proposal has one or more deficiencies for which correction would require major revisions.

FACTOR 3: Past Performance The Government will evaluate past performance by determining recency and relevancy of the Offeror’s recent past performance and by conducting a performance confidence assessment. The Government may contact each Offeror’s customers to inquire about overall management efficiency, work quality, and record of forecasting and controlling direct and indirect costs. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts performed most recently and deemed most relevant to the effort described in the RFP. The following will be considered:

1. Ability to adhere to schedules.

2. Management Approach.

3. Quality of work, performance in accordance with contract requirements.

4. Customer satisfaction.

5. Business Relations.

Offerors that clearly demonstrate relevant corporate-level experience, knowledge, and capability in the required task areas will be assessed as having lower technical risk. Conversely, Offerors with limited or no corporate-level experience in the required task areas may be deemed to have a higher technical risk, as their ability to successfully perform the requirements may be uncertain.

The Government will consider the depth, breadth, and relevance of the Offeror's corporate-level experience as an indicator of its ability to mitigate risks and deliver successful outcomes.

The Government may use other information available from Government sources to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance. The Government may also consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database, and/or personal knowledge. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the offeror.

The past performance of a parent or affiliated/sister company will be attributed to an offeror of a Joint Venture in an equal manner where the firm's proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliated/sister company have affected the performance of the offeror.

Note: Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory confidence rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. The offeror will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse information received to which the offeror has not had a chance to respond.

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has high expectations 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 expectations that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has low expectations 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Note: A “Neutral” rating (for the Past Performance factor only) is defined as an Offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence rating can be reasonably assigned. A “Neutral” rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

FACTOR 4: Price Proposal Price Proposals will be evaluated separately from the Technical Proposal. The price will not be rated or scored. Unreasonably low or unreasonably high prices may be rejected without further consideration. Offerors are cautioned that an unreasonably low or high price proposal would be considered as showing an inherent lack of technical competence, or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed contractual requirements and would be grounds for rejection of the proposal. For evaluation purposes only, the total evaluated price of this contract will be the sum of the totals for Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs), and all Option Periods for these line items. The total of the Base Period and all Option Periods will be combined to arrive at the total evaluated offer. To be considered for award, an Offeror must submit a price for all CLINs and Sub-CLINs for the Base Period and all Option Periods. All priced CLINs will be evaluated for price reasonableness.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Technical and past performance, when combined, are the non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)