Section M Amend. 1.pdf

NATIONWIDE DD&R– FINAL RFP SECTION M

SOLICITATION NO. 89303319REM000052

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 2015) (Deviation)

(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 (SSA) will select an Offeror(s) for Master IDIQ

Contract award whose proposal(s) represents the most highly rated Technical and Management proposal(s), at a fair and reasonable price. One or more Offerors may be selected for award of

Master IDIQ Contract(s) and therefore may be eligible to compete for future task orders under this Contract. The LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task Order (Attachment L-10) will serve as a sample task order for evaluation of the Master IDIQ contract(s). 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. DOE intends to make a single award for performance of the LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task Order under this solicitation.

(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 and/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) and/or Task Order 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(s) 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

M-3

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.10 (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, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract(s) 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.

M.2 DOE-M-2002 Evaluation Factor – Technical and Management Approach (Oct 2015) (Revised)

(a) Technical Approach Elements:

DOE will evaluate the completeness and effectiveness of the Offeror’s technical approach to achieve the LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task Order objectives and activities (Attachment L-10) including the specified performance measures and completion criteria for the PWS elements listed in the table below.

LLNL Building 251 DD&R

Task Order

Sub-Task

Detailed Technical Approach

1 C.1.2, Task Order Implementation

C.3, Deactivation, Decommissioning, and Removal (DD&R) of Facilities

C.3.1, Facility Characterization Program

C.3.2, DD&R of Facilities

C.4, Waste Support Services

(b) Management Approach Element: DOE will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach to effectively manage, implement, and execute the LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task Order, to interface and collaborate with other site contractors and to partner with DOE and the Regulators to achieve desired outcomes.

(c) Schedule: DOE will evaluate the completeness and realism of the Offeror’s Primavera P6 (P6) schedule that identifies the time phasing of work for the LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task Order and the activities necessary to achieve the tasks (consistent with the organization of work set forth in the

PWS/WBS for its cost proposal in Section L, Attachment L-5, Cost Summary Worksheets). DOE will evaluate whether the schedule includes all work specified in the LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task

Order, is consistent with the proposed technical approach, and gives consideration to the constraints identified in Attachment L-7, Cost Assumptions.

M-4

(d) Small Business Participation. DOE will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to meet or exceed the small business subcontracting goal of 45% for the Task Order, including subcontracting of meaningful work scope.

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 – total contract value of $200M; and complexity – performance challenges (e.g., overcoming barriers to implementing prior innovations and work performance improvements, compliance with complex CHRM requirements, and successful partnerships with the Government, other clients, 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 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 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 favorablity. However, relevancy determinations on a past performance contract may differ depending upon the similarity of the scope each entity performed on the past performance contract to the scope they are proposed to perform in the Master

IDIQ PWS.

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

Section L.8(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 on the LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task

Order. 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 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 materials, 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 reasonably predictive of the Offeror’s or Teaming

Subcontractor’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) in accordance with the work each entity is proposed to perform to cover the

M-5 work scope described in the Master IDIQ PWS. The resulting rating will consider whether the

Offeror, to include all members of a teaming arrangement, as defined in FAR 9.601(1), as a whole has demonstrated relevancy to all Master IDIQ PWS requirements. Teaming Subcontractors will be evaluated on the work similar in scope, size, and complexity to that proposed to be performed by that

Teaming Subcontractor on the LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task Order.

(e) No record of past performance. If the Offeror or Teaming Subcontractor(s) do not have a record of relevant recent past performance or if information is not available, the Offeror or Teaming

Subcontractor(s) will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

(f) 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.

(g) Sources of past performance information submitted with proposal. The Government may consider past performance information provided by the Offeror under Section L.13(a), including potentially contacting any or all of the references provided by the Offeror. The Government will only evaluate past performance information submitted under Section L.13(a) and Attachment L-9 for work it considers relevant to the acquisition in terms of similar in scope, size, and complexity, as defined above in paragraph (a), and within the timeframe specified. Note: the past performance from contracts with DOE shall not be evaluated with more relevance than past performance with other federal, state, local and foreign governments and/or with commercial customers. The evaluation of relevancy is based on the factors listed in paragraph (a) 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.

(h) Other Information. The Government may also 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 (CPARS), 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)

M.4 Evaluation Factor – Cost and Fee

Master IDIQ Contract: The Cost and Fee Proposal will not be adjectivally rated or point scored, but will be considered in the overall proposal evaluation.

DOE will evaluate the Offeror’s cost proposal using cost realism techniques. The evaluation of cost realism may include an analysis of specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost to determine whether the proposed estimated cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. Based on its review, DOE will determine a probable cost to the Government as prescribed by FAR 15.4040-1(d).

The total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the following together: (1) the most probable cost for the CLIN 01001 – Task Order Implementation and CLIN 01002 Program Support Services, DD&R of

Facilities and Waste Support Services, (2) the total evaluated fee for CLIN 01002, and (3) the computed

NNSS disposal costs. The total evaluated price will be used to evaluate price reasonableness for the

M-6 purposes of selecting Offeror(s) for award of the Master IDIQ Contract and used in the best value analysis for purposes of selecting an Offeror for award of the LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task Order.

DOE will perform a technical analysis of the Volume III, Cost and Fee Proposal, and consider this analysis in the evaluation of Volume II, Technical and Management Proposal. As part of the technical analysis of the Cost and Fee Proposal, DOE will evaluate traceability between proposal volumes and errors and omissions in the Volume III proposal.

An unreasonable, unrealistic, or incomplete Volume III, Cost and Fee Proposal, and/or inconsistencies between the Volume III, Cost and Fee Proposal, and the Volume II, Technical and Management Proposal, may indicate a poor understanding of the PWS requirements and may negatively impact an Offeror’s evaluation and appropriate criterion rating of the Offeror’s Volume II, Technical and Management

Proposal. Should the Government determine inconsistencies exist or the Offeror appears to lack an understanding of the requirements; such inconsistency or apparent lack of understanding may result in an adjustment to the Offeror’s proposed costs and/or may result in adverse evaluations of the Technical

Approach factor. In addition, as stated above, a proposal may be deemed unacceptable if it does not substantially and materially comply with the proposal preparation instructions.

The Offeror has the responsibility to fully document its cost proposal and provide clear traceability to the

PWS elements. DOE may adjust an Offeror’s proposed cost as part of its cost realism analysis if the

Offeror does not adequately provide this documentation and traceability.

As part of the evaluation, DOE will review the accounting system information and financial documentation to assist in the determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR Part 9.

M.5 DOE-M-2011 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors (Oct 2015)

(a) The evaluation factors for the Technical and Management Proposal (Volume II) are below.

(1) Technical and Management Approach; and

(2) Past Performance.

Technical and Management Approach is more important than Past Performance.

(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.6 DOE-M-2012 Basis for Awards (Oct 2015)

Award of the Master IDIQ: The Government intends to award Master IDIQ contract(s) to Offeror(s) with the most highly rated Technical and Management Proposals (Volume II) at a fair and reasonable price, allowing for efficient competition and award of future task orders. 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 evaluated for price reasonableness. The Government will not award a contract at an unreasonably high price. The Government will consider the past performance of the Offeror to include all members of a teaming arrangement as defined in FAR 9.601(1) performing

M-7 all of the Master IDIQ PWS elements and the past performance of the Teaming Subcontractor(s) performing work that is proposed to be performed by that Teaming Subcontractor(s) on the LLNL

Building 251 DD&R Task Order.

Award of Task Order 1: Recipient(s) of the Master IDIQ Contract are eligible for LLNL Building 251

DD&R Task Order award, except where DOE has determined an OCI exists. The Government intends to award the LLNL Building 251 DD&R Task Order to one 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

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.