Sec L M 3 31.doc

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

Land Between The Lakes National Recreational Area

Wranglers Campground – Wastewater Improvements

I. Phase One

All Design-Build teams responding during Phase One will be evaluated using the following evaluation criteria:

A. 20 Page limit for submittals.

B. Past experience/past performance. The proposals shall reflect the prime contractor’s past wastewater treatment facility design and construction experiences on similar projects completed over the past five years. Experience is relevant when the offeror has been confronted with the kinds of work or challenges that will be present under the contract contemplated. The offeror will be assessed by the relevant experience on the basis of its breadth and its depth. For each relevant contract or reference, the offeror shall provide:

i. Name and location of the project.

ii. Contact name and phone number of customer or their agent.

iii. Whether the offeror was the prime contractor or a subcontractor.

iv. List of subcontractors and suppliers used.

v. Brief description of project and work performed.

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror, as an organization, has: (1) satisfied its customers, and (2) complied with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Government will inquire about the following elements, which are all of equal importance in relation to each other, (i) quality of the offeror’s work (services); (ii) customer satisfaction; (iii) timeliness of the Firm during performance and the final completion of the project; and (iv) overall business relations.

i.

Quality of Services: Demonstrated ability to perform services specifically relevant to this project. Criteria used for evaluation will include previous experience and performance of similar projects in size and complexity. Quality Control of all Work including subcontractors and suppliers.

ii.

Customer Satisfaction: Satisfaction of end users with the Contractor's completed products and services. Other areas that will be evaluated are: the proper commissioning of all systems; the completeness of close-out procedures; complete, accurate, and precise directions in Operation and Maintenance manuals; and the response to any warranty of work.

iii.

Timeliness of performance: Compliance with delivery schedules; reliability; responsiveness to technical direction, no assessment of liquidated damages. Timeliness and completeness of Submittals, maintenance and accuracy of Record Documents, effective subcontractor scheduling and coordination. The ability to stay on schedule, and provide adequate time for scheduled Government inspections and coordination of Government Furnished Products.

iv.

Business relations: Effective management and communication; ability to manage projects involving subcontracts; working relationship with the Contracting Officer and technical representatives; reasonable/cooperative behavior; flexibility; effective contractor recommended solutions; safe, clean work environments; businesslike concern for Government's interests.

The Government may research offeror performance on any federal, state, local, and commercial contract performance of the offeror that is known to the Government, but not included on the submitted Performance Information. Additionally, personal experience and evaluator knowledge of offeror performance may be utilized.

The Government will consider the relevance of past performance information obtained in relation to the scope of this procurement with respect to both similar efforts, and the length and scope, number, complexity, and diversity of contracts completed by the firm. Past performance, either positive or negative, which is considered by the Government to be more closely related to the scope of this effort will be given additional weight in the evaluation process.

Offerors with past performance data will be evaluated in the same manner as all other evaluation factors; however, those offerors with no past performance data will treated as an unknown performance risk and neither be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably. Therefore, offerors will receive credit for good past performance, lose credit for poor past performance, and neither receive nor lose credit for no relevant past performance.

C. Staffing. The proposals shall provide names and titles of key personnel to be assigned to the project, i.e. Design Engineer, Structural Engineer, Project manager, Project Superintendent, project Foreman, and Quality Control Inspector. The key personnel shall be shown in an organization chart relative to each person’s role. Indicate the qualifications of key personnel listed, showing at a minimum their experience and education. Resumes are not requested. If resumes are submitted, they shall be counted as part of the 20 page limit.

D. Quality Control and Quality Assurance Plan. The proposals shall provide the quality control and quality assurance plan for the project, which shall include a minimum all testing and inspections required in the contract. The quality control and quality assurance plan shall also include, but not be limited to, all supplier and plant inspection companies, including their responsibilities.

II. Phase Two

The highest rated offerors from Phase One will be selected to submit Phase Two proposals. The competitive range will not exceed five unless the Contracting Officer determines that a number greater than five is in the government’s best interest. The Government will notify those offerors that did not make the competitive range and will not be considered for further evaluations. Those firms making the competitive range will be sent a Request for Proposal and evaluated to determine best value on the following factors:

A. 20 Page limit for Phase II submittals.

B. Conceptual site plans and designs. The proposals shall include a Conceptual Site Plan and Design for the project. The Conceptual Site Plan and Design shall be simple in nature, but sufficient to reflect an understanding of the project and a technical approach to the design and construction.

C. Sustainability. The proposals shall reflect opportunities for sustainable design and construction.

D. Technical approach (not including detailed design or technical information). The proposals shall reflect the offerors understanding of the project and its potential problems, how they relate to the contract requirements and other legal requirements (i.e. NEPA, permits, etc.). The offeror should show how they will approach solving these problems. The approach/solution should describe the resources to be used and the milestones/schedule for the overall project.

E. Price. The price factor will not be rated, but will be used to determine price reasonableness. Each board member shall provide to the chairperson a brief narrative discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, and deficiencies of each proposal. Apparent errors and oversights in the proposal requiring clarification shall also be identified. The basis for each adjectival rating for each criterion assigned by individual evaluators will be furnished to the chairperson. After each criterion of each proposal is initially rated, it will be discussed among all the evaluators, discrepancies resolved or clarifications requested, and a consensus rating developed. The consensus rating will be one of several factors considered in the recommendation for award by the contracting officer. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

The price proposals will be evaluated against the Government Price Estimate, as well as other price proposals received. The estimate will be used as a benchmark for which the price evaluation will be conducted. The analysis of the variance between the Government's estimate and each offer and variance among the offerors will indicate whether further review is necessary in order to determine if the price is realistic. Additional review may be performed by both the technical board and the Contracting Officer.

The Government reserves the right to negotiate with any or all offers or award without discussion and negotiations on this phase of the solicitation to the offeror submitting the best value. Cost for submission of price and technical proposals will not be compensated.

Site Visit - A pre-bid site visit will be conducted with the Phase II offerors only.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS AND AWARD

Land Between The Lakes National Recreational Area

Wranglers Campground – Wastewater Improvements

Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal is (1) technically acceptable and (2) technical/cost relationship is the most advantageous to the Government. Evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to price in the award decision. The critical factor in making any cost/technical trade-off is not the spread between the technical ratings, but rather, the significance of that difference. The significance of the spread of ratings will be determined on the basis of what the difference might mean in terms of the performance and what it would cost the Government to take advantage of it. Award may not necessarily be made for technical capabilities that would appear to exceed those needed for the successful performance of the work. The Government reserves the right to make cost/technical tradeoffs that are in the best interest of and advantageous to the Government.

Award may be made without further discussions. Offers should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms, from a price and technical standpoint, which the Contractor can submit to the Government. The Government may, after evaluation of the proposals, conduct further oral or written discussions as appropriate, with all offerors whose proposals are within the competitive range. Failure to provide all information requested by the RFP may render the proposal as unacceptable.

I. Phase One

All Design-Build teams responding during Phase One will be evaluated using the following evaluation criteria:

A. Past experience/past performance. The proposals shall reflect the prime contractor’s past wastewater treatment facility design and construction experiences on similar projects completed over the past five years. Experience is relevant when the offeror has been confronted with the kinds of work or challenges that will be present under the contract contemplated. The offeror will be assessed by the relevant experience on the basis of its breadth and its depth. For each relevant contract or reference, the offeror shall provide:

vi. Name and location of the project.

vii. Contact name and phone number of customer or their agent.

viii. Whether the offeror was the prime contractor or a subcontractor.

ix. List of subcontractors and suppliers used.

x. Brief description of project and work performed.

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which an offeror, as an organization, has: (1) satisfied its customers, and (2) complied with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Government will inquire about the following elements, which are all of equal importance in relation to each other, (i) quality of the offeror’s work (services); (ii) customer satisfaction; (iii) timeliness of the Firm during performance and the final completion of the project; and (iv) overall business relations.

i. Quality of Services: Demonstrated ability to perform services specifically relevant to this project. Criteria used for evaluation will include previous experience and performance of similar projects in size and complexity. Quality Control of all Work including subcontractors and suppliers.

ii. Customer Satisfaction: Satisfaction of end users with the Contractor's completed products and services. Other areas that will be evaluated are: the proper commissioning of all systems; the completeness of close-out procedures; complete, accurate, and precise directions in Operation and Maintenance manuals; and the response to any warranty of work.

iii. Timeliness of performance: Compliance with delivery schedules; reliability; responsiveness to technical direction, no assessment of liquidated damages. Timeliness and completeness of Submittals, maintenance and accuracy of Record Documents, effective subcontractor scheduling and coordination. The ability to stay on schedule, and provide adequate time for scheduled Government inspections and coordination of Government Furnished Products.

iv. Business relations: Effective management and communication; ability to manage projects involving subcontracts; working relationship with the Contracting Officer and technical representatives; reasonable/cooperative behavior; flexibility; effective contractor recommended solutions; safe, clean work environments; businesslike concern for Government's interests.

The Government may research offeror performance on any federal, state, local, and commercial contract performance of the offeror that is known to the Government, but not included on the submitted Performance Information. Additionally, personal experience and evaluator knowledge of offeror performance may be utilized.

The Government will consider the relevance of past performance information obtained in relation to the scope of this procurement with respect to both similar efforts, and the length and scope, number, complexity, and diversity of contracts completed by the firm. Past performance, either positive or negative, which is considered by the Government to be more closely related to the scope of this effort will be given additional weight in the evaluation process.

Offerors with past performance data will be evaluated in the same manner as all other evaluation factors; however, those offerors with no past performance data will treated as an unknown performance risk and neither be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably. Therefore, offerors will receive credit for good past performance, lose credit for poor past performance, and neither receive nor lose credit for no relevant past performance.

B. Staffing. The proposals shall provide names and titles of key personnel to be assigned to the project, i.e. Design Engineer, Structural Engineer, Project Manager, Project Superintendent, Project Foreman, and Quality Control Inspector. The key personnel shall be shown in an organization chart relative to each person’s role. Indicate the qualifications of key personnel listed, showing at a minimum their experience and education.

C. Quality Control and Quality Assurance Plan. The proposals shall provide the quality control and quality assurance plan for the project, which shall include a minimum all testing and inspections required in the contract. The quality control and quality assurance plan shall also include, but not be limited to, all supplier and plant inspection companies, including their responsibilities.

II. Phase Two

The highest rated offerors from Phase One will be selected to submit Phase Two proposals. The competitive range will not exceed five unless the Contracting Officer determines that a number greater than five is in the government’s best interest. The Government will notify those offerors that did not make the competitive range and will not be considered for further evaluations. Those firms making the competitive range will be sent a Request for Proposal and evaluated to determine best value on the following factors:

A. Conceptual site plans and designs. The proposals shall include a Conceptual Site Plan and Design for the project. The Conceptual Site Plan and Design shall be simple in nature, but sufficient to reflect an understanding of the project and a technical approach to the design and construction.

B. Sustainability. The proposals shall reflect opportunities for sustainable design and construction.

C. Technical approach (not including detailed design or technical information). The proposals shall reflect the offerors understanding of the project and its potential problems, how they relate to the contract requirements and other legal requirements (i.e. NEPA, permits, etc.). The offeror should show how they will approach solving these problems. The approach/solution should describe the resources to be used and the milestones/schedule for the overall project.

Each board member shall provide to the chairperson a brief narrative discussion of the advantages, disadvantages, and deficiencies of each proposal. Apparent errors and oversights in the proposal requiring clarification shall also be identified. The basis for each adjectival rating for each criterion assigned by individual evaluators will be furnished to the chairperson. After each criterion of each proposal is initially rated, it will be discussed among all the evaluators, discrepancies resolved or clarifications requested, and a consensus rating developed. The consensus rating will be one of several factors considered in the recommendation for award by the contracting officer. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

D. Price. The price factor will not be rated, but will be used to determine price reasonableness. The price proposals will be evaluated against the Government Price Estimate, as well as other price proposals received. The estimate will be used as a benchmark for which the price evaluation will be conducted. The analysis of the variance between the Government's estimate and each offer and variance among the offerors will indicate whether further review is necessary in order to determine if the price is realistic. Additional review may be performed by both the technical board and the Contracting Officer.