ICP_Section M_DRFP.pdf

IDAHO CLEANUP PROJECT (ICP) – DRAFT END STATE RFP SECTION M

SOLICITATION NO.: 89303319REM000034

M-1

Part IV – Representations and Instructions

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M-2

M.1 DOE-M-2001 Proposal Evaluation – General – Alternate III (Feb 2019)

(a) Conduct of acquisition.

(1) This acquisition will be conducted pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Part 15 entitled, Contracting by Negotiation; Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR), Part

915 entitled, Contracting by Negotiation; and the provisions of this solicitation.

(2) DOE has established a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) to evaluate the proposals submitted by

Offerors in response to this solicitation. Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the Offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. Proposals will be evaluated solely on the factors specified in the solicitation against the evaluation factors in this Section M to determine the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract.

(3) The designated source selection authority will select an Offeror for contract award whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The source selection authority’s decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all evaluation factors in the solicitation. The source selection authority may reject all proposals received in response to this solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.

(b) Deficiency in proposal.

(1) A deficiency, as defined at FAR 15.001 entitled, Definitions, is 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. No award will be made to an Offeror whose proposal is determined to be deficient.

(2) A proposal will be eliminated from further consideration before completing the Government’s evaluation if the proposal is deficient as to be unacceptable on its face. Deficiencies may include any exceptions or deviations to the terms of the solicitation. A proposal will be deemed unacceptable if it does not represent a reasonable initial effort to address itself to the material requirements of the solicitation, or if it does not substantially and materially comply with the proposal preparation instructions of this solicitation. Cursory responses or responses which merely repeat or reformulate the Master Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

Performance Work Statement (PWS) will not be considered responsive to the requirements of the solicitation. In the event that a proposal is rejected, a notice will be sent to the Offeror stating the reason(s) that the proposal will not be considered for further evaluation under this solicitation.

(c) Responsibility. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, and DEAR Subpart 909.1 entitled, Responsible Prospective Contractors, the Procuring Contracting

Officer (PCO) is required to make an affirmative determination of whether a prospective contractor is responsible. The PCO may, if necessary, conduct a preaward survey of the prospective contractor as part of the considerations in determining responsibility. In the absence of information clearly indicating that the otherwise successful Offeror is responsible, the PCO will make a determination of nonresponsibility and no award will be made to that Offeror; unless, the apparent successful Offeror is a small business and the Small Business Administration issues a Certificate of Competency in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.6 entitled, Certificates of Competency and Determinations of

Responsibility. The responsibility determination includes a finding that award of the contract to the

Offeror will not pose an undue risk to the common defense and security as a result of its access to classified information or special nuclear material in the performance of the contract, as prescribed in Section L.11 (DEAR 952.204-73, entitled Facility Clearance), which requires submission of specific information by the Offeror related to foreign interests.

(d) Award without discussions. In accordance with paragraph (f)(4) of the provision at FAR 52.215-1, M-3

Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The

Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO later determines them to be necessary and may limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency.

(e) Organizational conflicts of interest. The Offeror is required by the Section K provision entitled, Organizational Conflicts of Interest Disclosure, to provide a statement of any past, present, or currently planned interests related to the performance of the work and a statement that an actual or potential conflict of interest or unfair competitive advantage does or does not exist in connection with the contract resulting from the solicitation.

(f) Facility Clearance. The Offeror is required by the provision at DEAR 952.204-73 entitled, Facility

Clearance, to submit information related to its foreign interests. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484 § 836 prohibits the award of a DOE contract under a national security program to an entity controlled by a foreign government, unless a waiver is granted by the Secretary of Energy.

M.2 Evaluation Factor – Key Personnel

(a) Key Personnel. DOE will evaluate the proposed Program Manager, ESH&Q Manager, Business

Manager and other proposed key personnel along with the Offeror’s rationale for the proposed non-required key personnel and why they are essential to the successful performance of the entire IDIQ

PWS and the optimal team for execution of the Master IDIQ PWS. DOE will evaluate whether the key personnel team make-up demonstrates the elements in paragraph (c) below. DOE will evaluate the proposed key personnel authority level. DOE’s evaluation of the Program Manager will be the most important aspect of the evaluation of key personnel.

Failure of the Offeror to propose the required key personnel positions, or to confirm the availability of all key personnel as being assigned to the contract full-time and that their permanent duty station is located in the local surrounding area will adversely affect the Government’s evaluation of the proposal and may make the proposal ineligible for award. Additionally, failure of the Offeror to provide a letter of commitment for each key personnel will adversely affect the Government’s evaluation of the proposal.

Note: DOE will evaluate all proposed key personnel. However, a higher number of proposed key persons will not be inherently evaluated more favorably than a lesser number of proposed key persons, as the proposed key personnel and the key personnel team will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria in this factor.

(b) Resume. The individuals proposed as key personnel will be evaluated on the degree to which they are qualified and suitable for the proposed position in relation to the work for which they are proposed to perform and areas of responsibility. The qualifications and suitability of the individual key personnel and the key personnel team will be evaluated on the following:

(1) Experience. The key personnel individually will be evaluated on their relevant experience in performing work similar to the work to be performed in their proposed position, including leadership and other accomplishments, with emphasis on project and completion type work.

(2) Education. The key personnel will be evaluated on their education, specialized training, certifications, and licenses.

(3) DOE may contact any or all of the references, previous employers, or clients to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the resume and to further assess the qualifications and

M-4 suitability of proposed key personnel.

(c) Key Personnel Team. The evaluation will include an assessment as to whether the Offeror has demonstrated the appropriate Key Personnel team, with the appropriate mix of Key Personnel positions and skills, including those described in individual resumes, to successfully perform the contract. The assessment will include the depth and breadth of experience in the following elements:

(i) Recent and relevant experience in direct project execution in the field; (ii) Experience at partnering and good-faith negotiations with client(s) that achieved measurable performance improvements; (iii) Experience in incentive-based contracting resulting in a significant performance improvement or an end-state completion; and (iv) Experience in successful regulatory interactions and compliance with demonstrated positive benefit to the Government. More recent experience in these elements within the last three (3) years may be given greater consideration. While it is not expected that each key person will possess experience in each of these elements, the Key Personnel team collectively should demonstrate experience in each of them.

(d) Oral problem scenarios – Key personnel. The Offeror’s key personnel, as a team, will be evaluated on their problem-solving ability as demonstrated during their preparation for and presentation of the response to the problem-solving scenarios. The key personnel will be evaluated on their demonstrated leadership, teamwork, communications, knowledge of the Master IDIQ PWS, quality of the solution(s) to the problems, and problem-solving capabilities both individually and as a team. The Program Manager will be evaluated individually also on his/her leadership and effective utilization of the key personnel team during the problem-solving scenarios.

(e) Oral interview – Program Manager. The Offeror’s Program Manager will be evaluated for qualifications and suitability, including leadership capability for the proposed position as demonstrated during the oral interview.

M.3 DOE-M-2008 Evaluation Factor – Past Performance (Oct 2015) (Revised)

(a) Offeror. The Offeror, to include all members of a teaming arrangement, as defined in FAR 9.601(1), will be evaluated on the favorability of relevant and recent past performance information obtained for the Offeror performing work similar in scope, size, and complexity to the requirements of the Master

IDIQ PWS to assess the Offeror’s potential success in performing the work required by the contract.

Similar scope, size, and complexity are defined as follows: scope – type of work (e.g., work as identified in the Master IDIQ PWS); size – dollar value (approximate average annual value) and contract period of performance; and complexity – performance challenges (e.g., overcoming barriers for completion/closure-type projects to safely accelerate work scope; management of complex CHRM requirements set forth in Section H; relevant types of waste and associated processing through final disposition; handling, storage and transfer of spent nuclear fuel; maintaining, operating and performing D&D as a CERCLA Non-Time Critical Removal Action of aging nuclear facilities;

maintaining compliance in a complex regulatory environment; implementation of environmental, safety and health requirements of 10 CFR 830 and 10 CFR 835 related to Nuclear Safety, Quality, and Occupational Radiological Protection, and 10 CFR 851 Worker Safety and Health; relevant

RCRA and CERCLA performance; and successful partnerships with the Government, Client, and

Regulators). The higher the degree of relevance of the work, the greater the consideration that may be given.

DOE will evaluate recent past performance information for contracts that are currently being performed or have been completed within the last three (3) years from the original solicitation issuance date. More recent past performance information may be given greater consideration.

The Government will not apportion the favorability of past performance differently amongst the members of a Contractor’s Teaming Arrangement, as defined in FAR 9.601(1), on a past performance

M-5 contract, as each entity is considered to be responsible for overall performance of the ongoing or prior contract. All partner companies on past performance contracts will be equally credited (positively and negatively) for past performance with regard to favorability. However, relevancy determinations on a past performance contract may differ depending upon what scope each entity is proposed to perform.

(b) Teaming Subcontractors. The Offeror’s proposed Teaming Subcontractors as defined in

Section L.9(a)(2) will be evaluated on the favorability of the past performance information obtained for the Teaming Subcontractor performing work similar in scope, size, and complexity to that proposed to be performed by that Teaming Subcontractor. DOE will evaluate past performance information for contracts that are currently being performed or have been completed within the last three (3) years from the original solicitation issuance date.

(c) Newly formed entity and predecessor companies. The evaluation of past performance for the Offeror and any Teaming Subcontractor(s) may be based on the past performance of its parent organization(s), member organizations in a joint venture, limited liability company, or other similar or affiliated companies, provided the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent, member, or affiliated company will be provided or relied upon in contract performance such that the parent, member, or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. Meaningful involvement means the parent, member, or affiliate will provide material supplies, equipment, personnel, or other tangible assets to contract performance; or that the common parent will utilize the expertise, best practices, lessons learned, or similar resources from the affiliate to affect the performance of the Offeror. Past performance information from predecessor companies that existed prior to any mergers or acquisitions may also be considered where the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates such performance reasonably can be predictive of the Offeror’s performance.

(d) Work to be performed. DOE will evaluate the Offeror and all members of a teaming arrangement, as defined in FAR 9.601(1) and any Teaming Subcontractors, in accordance with the work each entity is proposed to perform to cover the work scope described in the Master IDIQ PWS. The resulting rating will consider whether the Offeror’s team as a whole (including Teaming Subcontractors) have demonstrated relevancy to all PWS requirements.

(e) No record of past performance. If the Offeror or Teaming Subcontractor(s) do not have a record of relevant past performance or if information is not available, the Offeror or Teaming Subcontractor(s) will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

(f) Performance information. The Government will only evaluate past performance information for work it considers relevant to the acquisition in terms of similarity in scope, size, and complexity, as defined above in paragraph (a), and within the timeframe specified, as defined above in paragraph (a). The

Offeror will also be evaluated on safety statistics (OSHA Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) cases and Total Recordable Case (TRC)) and DOE enforcement actions and/or worker safety and health, nuclear safety, and/or classified information security incidents or notifications posted to the DOE Office of Enterprise Assessments website (https://energy.gov/ea/information-center/enforcement-infocenter) and corrective actions taken to resolve those problems.

(g) Terminated contracts. The Government will consider contracts of the Offeror, to include all members of a teaming arrangement, as defined in FAR 9.601(1), and Teaming Subcontractors that were terminated for default, including the reasons therefore, over the preceding three (3) years from the solicitation issuance date.

(h) Sources of past performance information. The Government may consider past performance information from sources other than those provided by the Offeror, such as commercial and government clients, government records, regulatory agencies, and government databases such as the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government

M-6 may contact any or all of the references provided by the Offeror and will consider such information obtained in its evaluation. Note: DOE contracts are not necessarily evaluated with more relevance than non-DOE contracts, based on the sole fact that it was work for DOE. The evaluation of relevancy is based on the factors listed above. In addition, the Government may consider any other information determined to be reasonably predictive of the quality of the Offeror’s performance under this proposed contract, such as information bearing on the Offeror’s integrity and business ethics. This other information is not limited to contracts found relevant to this procurement in terms of scope, size, and complexity.

(i) List of DOE contracts. The Government may consider the information provided per Section L, Attachment L-10, List of DOE Contracts, and evaluate past performance information on work determined to be relevant to the acquisition in terms of similarity in scope, size, and complexity, as defined above in paragraph (a).

M.4 Evaluation Factor – Management Approach

(a) Contract Transition Approach. DOE will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to achieve the Contract

Transition Task Order requirements, including Contractor Human Resource Management (CHRM) requirements in Section H, for the safe, effective, and efficient transfer of responsibility for execution of the Master IDIQ Contract with little or no disruption to ongoing operations.

(b) IDIQ Management Approach. DOE will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach to effectively manage, implement (including good faith negotiations with DOE), and execute multiple Task Orders for the Master IDIQ PWS; to interface and collaborate with other site contractors; and to partner with

DOE and the Regulators to achieve desired End States.

(c) Small Business Participation: DOE will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to meet or exceed the small business subcontracting requirement of 15% of the cumulative value of Task Orders, including subcontracting of meaningful work scope.

M.5 Evaluation Factor – Cost and Fee

The Cost and Fee Proposal will not be adjectivally rated or point scored, but will be considered in the overall evaluation of proposals in determining the best value to the Government.

The Cost and Fee Proposal will be evaluated for cost realism and cost reasonableness in accordance with

FAR 15.404-1. DOE will not determine an overall estimated total Contract value for evaluation as part of this evaluation. The evaluation will include a cost realism analysis of the Offeror’s proposed Contract

Transition Task Order costs, a cost reasonableness analysis of the proposed fully burdened labor rates

(excluding fee) for FY 2022 applied to the DOE provided direct labor hours, and a cost reasonableness analysis of the key personnel costs (first year) to determine whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the proposed key personnel, and methods of performance described in the Offeror’s approach to transition activities. The cost proposal will be compared to the Volume II proposal for consistency and understanding of the PWS.

For purposes of determining the best value, the evaluated price will be the total of the proposed fee/profit

(all fee/profit proposed by Task Order type) for a one-year period (FY 2022), the costs for Key Personnel

(first year), the fully burdened labor rates (excluding fee) for FY 2022 applied to the DOE provided direct labor hours, and the probable costs for the proposed Contract Transition Task Order costs.

An Offeror that proposes a fee amount that exceeds the maximum prescribed available award fee, target fee, and/or fixed fee amounts as specified in Section L may be considered unacceptable for award.

M-7

M.6 DOE-M-2011 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors (Oct 2015)

(a) The relative importance of the evaluation factors for the Technical and Management Proposal

(Volume II) are below.

(1) Key Personnel;

(2) Past Performance; and

(3) Management Approach.

Key Personnel is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than

Management Approach.

(b) The evaluation factors for the Technical and Management Proposal (Volume II), when combined, are significantly more important than the total evaluated price (Volume III). Each evaluation factor applicable to this solicitation is identified and described in this and other provisions of this Section M.

The descriptive elements of each evaluation factor will be considered collectively in arriving at the evaluated rating of the Offeror’s proposal for that evaluation factor. Areas within an evaluation factor are not sub-factors and will not be individually rated, but will be considered in the overall evaluation for that particular evaluation factor.

M.7 DOE-M-2012 Basis for Award (Oct 2015)

The Government intends to award one contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government. Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through a process of evaluating each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors described above.

The evaluation factors for the Technical and Management Proposal will be adjectivally rated.

The Cost/Price evaluation factor will not be rated, however the evaluated price will be used in determining the “best value” to the Government. The Government is more concerned with obtaining a superior Technical and Management Proposal than making an award at the lowest evaluated price.

However, the Government will not make an award at a price premium it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one Offeror’s Technical and Management Proposal over another. Thus, to the extent that Offerors’ Technical and Management Proposals are evaluated as close or similar in merit, the evaluated price is more likely to be a determining factor in selection for award.