Evaluation_Factors_and_Instructions_to_Offerors.docx

Solicitation Instructions to Offerors, Evaluation Factors, and Ratings

I. Overview The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires general construction services at the Robert C. Weaver Building in Washington, D.C., in accordance with the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS). This solicitation is intended to result in an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity, single-award contract (IDIQ). Project requirements will be defined and funded at the task order level, and may include tasks for construction management, general repair and alteration services, provision of incidental construction materials, design work incidental to construction, as well as design-build projects. The IDIQ duration will be one base year with four one-year options, for a total ordering period of five years. The aggregate maximum order ceiling amount is $36,000,000.00. As applicable to the task requirements, orders may be issued on either a firm-fixed-price, or a time and materials basis.

II. Competition Limitations This is a competitive set-aside under the 8(a) program, limited geographically to offerors who are serviced by either the Washington D.C., Baltimore, or Virginia SBA District Offices only. (See FAR 19.804-2(b)(1) and 52.219-18, Alternate I). The applicable NAICS code is 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction). Offerors that do not meet the set-aside and geographical limitation will not be considered.

III. Tradeoff Process HUD will use a best value trade off process in order to select the most advantageous offer, price and non-price factors considered. Consequently, HUD may award to an offeror other than the lowest priced or highest rated technical proposal. Non-price evaluation factors, when combined, will be substantially more important than cost or price. However, if the offerors are nearly equal in technical merit, price could be the determining factor.

IV. Exchanges with Offerors and Submissions HUD intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or clarifications if deemed necessary. Therefore, the initial offer should represent the best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

A. Site Visit. Within five days of the solicitation release, interested offerors may submit a request to schedule a site visit to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), Raven Arnold at raven.m.arnold@hud.gov.

B. Questions. Within thirty days of the solicitation release, any pre-proposal questions and requests for information shall be submitted. Questions submitted after that time may only be addressed as time allows. Other than site visit requests, all questions, requests for information shall be submitted electronically to both the Contract Specialist, Daniel Fabian at daniel.e.fabian@hud.gov and the Contracting Officer, Shelli J. Waltz, at shelli.j.waltz@hud.gov.

C. Proposals. The due date is listed on the SF1442, p.1, block 13. Interested offerors shall submit two separate proposal volumes: Vol. 1) technical and past performance; and Vol. 2) price. The total file size of all attachments shall be less than 10MB. There is a 75-page limitation for the technical volume; pages beyond this limit will not be evaluated.

V. Evaluation Factors A. Technical Factor

1. IDIQ Technical Approach

a. HUD will evaluate each offeror’s understanding of the IDIQ requirements, including how well the proposal demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements described in the IDIQ PWS;

b. Management Plan: The offeror shall submit a Management Plan that is clear, concise, and demonstrates that it will result in meeting the requirements. The offeror shall submit a Management Plan that details:

i. Key personnel, including resumes;

ii. Proposed subcontracting, teaming arrangements, or joint ventures;

iii. Plans for communications, safety, quality control, submittals, contracting authority, and any other roles vital to successful performance.

iv. How well the offeror can evaluate, respond to, and execute multiple concurrent task orders.

c. Experience: Distinct from the past performance evaluation, HUD will evaluate the offerors’ experience from a technical perspective. This subfactor will evaluate the breadth, depth and relevance of offerors’ prior experience, considering:

i. Work that is similar to the scale and scope of this requirement;

ii. Construction, Renovation, and Alteration projects performed in occupied buildings;

iii. Experience and capabilities in general construction, construction management, design/build;

iv. Ability to self-perform projects across multiple construction trades;

v. Federal Construction IDIQ Contract Experience

2. Task Order Technical Approach: In lieu of a minimum guarantee, HUD plans to issue the first task order concurrently with the IDIQ award. The first task order will be substantially similar to and based on the sample task order evaluated as part of the IDIQ award.

a. The offeror shall submit a technical approach for the Sample Task Order that demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements described in the PWS, including any Section 508 requirements.

b. How well the project schedule demonstrates realistic timeframes and understanding for performance and deliverables;

c. If the proposal includes subcontractors, the offeror shall clearly identify what aspects of the work will be performed by the prime and what aspects of the work will be performed by each subcontractor. Offerors shall demonstrate that their proposed management plan at a minimum meets the limitations on subcontracting established in FAR 52.219-14(c); and

d. How well the proposed labor mix is based upon reasonable assumptions and is consistent with the requirements set forth in the Sample Task Order PWS. The technical proposal shall include labor categories and level of effort, but shall not include pricing in the technical proposal.

B. Past Performance: Offerors may submit up to three projects to represent past performance, including a brief description of scope, location, total cost, and client information. The Government may also consider any relevant to past performance information at-hand in CPARS.

i. Relevancy: A threshold determination will be made regarding the relevancy of past performance information. Factors considered will include recency, similarity to the applicable NAICS, similarity in scope and scale, and whether the client was a Governmental or institutional entity.

ii. Ratings: For projects that do not already have ratings in CPARS, the offeror may request clients to submit directly to the Contract Specialist a completed questionnaire corresponding to the CPARS rating system. (See attached sample questionnaire). Past performance for which ratings are not available, or for which the client is non-responsive, will not be considered.

iii. Responsibility: In addition to rating past performance, past performance information will be used in part to make a responsibility determination.

C. Price:

i. Sample Task Order: The sample task order price will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The task order breakout shall contain all cost elements, including rates for all proposed labor categories, labor hours, and materials. Individual cost elements will be evaluated for possible mistakes. However, a cost realism analysis will not be performed.

ii. IDIQ: The price volume shall also include fixed labor rates for the IDIQ for all potential labor categories, which will be subject to economic price adjustment based on revised wage determinations. The labor rates shall be fully burdened rates. The proposed IDIQ labor rates will be evaluated for price reasonableness.

iii. In addition to pricing information, the price volume shall include: Signed Solicitation Form; Completed Representations and Certifications, and a copy of the 8(a) Program Certification.

VI. Ratings A. Technical

1. Excellent/Very Low Risk – An excellent proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive understanding of the contract and program goals, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to performance of the program. In terms of the specific factor (or significant subfactor), the proposal contains one or more strengths and no weaknesses, significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very low.

2. Good/Low Risk – A good proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates a thorough understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. Weaknesses, if any, are not significant and no deficiencies exist. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

3. Fair/Medium Risk – A fair proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates an adequate understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. There are no deficiencies, but one or more significant weaknesses or a combination of many weaknesses exist that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is medium.

4. Marginal/High Risk – A marginal proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates a superficial or vague understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. The proposal has multiple significant weaknesses and weaknesses but no deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

5. Unsatisfactory/Very High Risk - An unsatisfactory proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates a lack of understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. One or more deficiencies or a combination of significant weaknesses exist sufficient to indicate a lack of understanding of the requirements. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very high.

B. Past Performance

1. Excellent/Very Low Risk/Very High Confidence: Offeror provided sufficient quantity of recent, very relevant, high quality references for the prime contractor and significant subcontractors.

2. Good/Low Risk/High Confidence: The combination of recent references provided for the prime contractor and significant subcontractors were of sufficient relevancy and quality to assure performance of the contract requirements.

3. Satisfactory/Medium Risk/Some Confidence: The combination of recent references provided for the prime contractor and significant subcontractors provides some assurances of future performance, but some risk exists (e.g. overreliance on substantial subcontractors).

4. Neutral/Unknown Risk/Neutral Confidence: Offeror had no prime or substantial subcontractor references that met the recency test or stated they had no recent, relevant past performance.

5. Poor/Very High Risk/Low Confidence: Offeror had poor references for the prime or substantial subcontractor or provided insufficient references to obtain a higher rating.

6. Unsatisfactory/Very High Risk/Very Low Confidence: Offeror failed to address the factor or references were recent and relevant but indicated unsatisfactory performance.

C. Price

1. Fair and Reasonable Determination

2. Compare: Rank Competitive Prices from Low to High

3. Identify Potential Mistakes

D. Definitions

1. Strength: The proposal demonstrates capability, expertise, or knowledge which greatly increases the likelihood of the offeror’s successful contract performance.

2. Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

3. Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Attachment __

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

PRIME CONTRACTOR OR PARTNER/SUBCONTRACTOR

NAME_____________________________

PPIRS

On File

* If performance was as a subcontractor, this will be the name of the prime contractor.

PAST PERFORMANCE SURVEY

This past performance survey is to be completed on the designated contractor or key personnel as designated below:

PAST PERFORMANCE PROJECT IDENTIFICATON (To be filled out by the Offeror):

PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCE INFORMATION (To be filled out by the Reference):

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is procuring the services described in the box below. You have been selected by the contractor or key personnel identified above to provide past performance information to HUD to be used in evaluating the offeror’s proposal for this acquisition. Thank you for your input.

For each of the Five (5) criteria listed below, the rater must choose One (1) Adjectival Rating by checking the box, as applicable. At a minimum, for any rating that is checked Exceptional, Very Good, Marginal or Unsatisfactory, please submit additional comments to substantiate the rating. If Cost Control is N/A, please explain why.

1. QUALITY OF SERVICE

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were highly effective

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were effective

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel appear or were satisfactory

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor/Key Personnel has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s/Key Personnel’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Click here to enter text.

2. SCHEDULE

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were highly effective

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were effective

Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel appear or were satisfactory

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor/Key Personnel has not yet identified corrective actions.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s/Key Personnel’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Click here to enter text.

3. COST CONTROL

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were highly effective

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were effective

Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel appear or were satisfactory

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor/Key Personnel has not yet identified corrective actions.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s/Key Personnel’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable

Click here to enter text.

4. BUSINESS RELATIONS

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were highly effective

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were effective

Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel appear or were satisfactory

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor/Key Personnel has not yet identified corrective actions.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s/Key Personnel’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Click here to enter text.

5. MANAGEMENT OF KEY PERSONNEL

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were highly effective

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel were effective

Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor/Key Personnel appear or were satisfactory

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor/Key Personnel has not yet identified corrective actions.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s/Key Personnel’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Click here to enter text.

APR 2019