Attach 17 - Section M.doc

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

.1 The evaluation criteria to be used by the Contract Officer for the selection of a contractor to perform the work specified are defined below. The criteria are divided into technical and price categories which consist of subsections corresponding to those in the article entitled “INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES” and the article entitled “INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING THE PRICE PROPOSAL” in Section L. All evaluation factors, other than price, are considered significantly more important than price. However, as the difference in technical merit between the proposals becomes less significant, the relative importance of the price will increase.

Basis for Award

The Government intends to award three (3) contracts to the responsible Offeror whose proposal are the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Offerors shall meet or excced Part A Minimum Requirements to be eligible for contract award. Factors 1 through 4 are listed in descending order of importance. The Government award decision is based on Factors 1 through 5. Factors 1 through 4, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 price. The Government will assemble a technical evaluation board (TEB) for the assignment of a technical rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable for each proposal based solely on the merits of the technical proposal. There will be no consideration of pricing data during the technical evaluation. A table representation of Part A Minimum Requirements and Factors 1 through 5 adjectival rating system are as follows:

Table 1 Adjectival Rating System

The rating guidelines definitions for Part A Minimum Requirements and Factors 1 through 5 are listed as follows:

Table 2 Strengths/Weaknesses/Deficiencies

.2 TECHNICAL CRITERIA. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the technical criteria listed below to determine whether it is responsive to the requirements of the RFP and are therefore acceptable.

.1 Part A Minimum Requirements. The following will be used to determine if the offeror has the ability to meet minimum requirements. If the offeror cannot meet any one of the Minimum Requirements, the offeror’s proposal will be excluded from further review and consideration:

Minimum Requirement 1a - The Offeror has the capacity to accomplish at least four (4) individual task orders of a value of a minimum of $500,000 simultaneously. The offeror will be evaluated on the relevancy and complexity of task order. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability manage IDIQ contracts and the capacity to take additional task orders. Additional consideration will be given to offerors that demonstrate the ability to manage AOC task orders with dedicated staff members.

Minimum Requirement 2 - The offeror will be evaluated on their ability to provide all Labor Categories as required in this solicitation. Additional consideration will be given to offerors that are currently staffed within either the prime, or proposed Core Team Members, to provide all Labor Categories for Standard Services as defined in Section B.

.3 Minimum Requirement 3 - The Offeror will be evaluated on their complexity and relevancy of their past experience. The offeror will be evaluated on whether they have performed the services defined in the Section C. Scope of Work for projects in similar type facilities.

.2 Part B Evaluation Factors. Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

.1 Factor 1: Past Performance The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine the extent of successful performance on similar contracts within the past three years, taking into consideration satisfaction of performance requirements, quality and budget controls, effective management, and degree of client satisfaction for each project. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. The Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. The Government places additional consideration on projects that document successful outcomes. The Government also places additional consideration on projects that provide documentation of difficult or unique challenges and the methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. Additional consideration will be given to offerors whose past performance has exhibited success on similar projects. In investigating the Offeror’s past performance, the Government will consider references submitted by the Offeror and may consider information from other sources.

The Offeror shall identify four (4) contracts/task orders with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance. Recent is defined as within the last three years. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude of the work described in this Statement of Work. Additional consideration offerors that submit CPARS for recent, relevant, and similar projects.

.2 Factor 2: Corporate Experience and Expertise The Offeror’s experience will be evaluated to determine the extent of its experience and qualifications in managing and providing CM Services on IDIQ/Task Order Contracts similar in scope, size and complexity during the last three years. Additional consideration will be given to Offerors whose experience as a prime contractor is most extensive on IDIQ/Task Order Contracts providing the same services (e.g., Construction Management services and Inspection Services) specified in this requirement.

Similar Scope, Size and Complexity: The selected offerors shall demonstrate the capacity to accomplish at least four (4) individual task orders of a value of a minimum of $500,000 simultaneously; the Small Business selected offerors shall demonstrate the capacity to accomplish at least four (4) individual task orders of a value up to $500,000 simultaneously.

.3 Factor 3: Management Approach The Offeror’s management plan will be evaluated to determine whether it provides an executive summary clearly defining key management functions and authorities, whether the proposed organizational structure ensures adequate management of all work. The plan must also address whether it adequately details the use of subcontractors, or teaming partners, and its capability to supply personnel upon award. The Government will evaluate the strength of the organization, structure, and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. Additional consideration will be given to offerors whose management plan demonstrates that the Offeror has more than 50% in-house staff to provide the diverse services specified in this requirement.

.4 Factor 4: Key Personnel The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the Offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed the experience required by this solicitation (see Section C). The resume of your Key Personnel (Construction Executive (CEx), Senior Claims Consultant, and Senior Scheduler/Analyst) as well as for Labor Categories defined in Section B, will be evaluated to determine the level of his/her qualifications to perform the duties requirmed by this solicitation. Each key personnel should indicate the a minimum qualifications of Section B to be considered acceptable. Additional consideration will be given to the Offeror whose proposed personnel have the most relevant education, training and skills. The resume will also be evaluated to determine the extent of successful participation in similar projects within the past five years, taking into consideration degree of client satisfaction for each project. Additional consideration will be given to Offerors whose key personnel’s relevant experience is extensive and whose past performance has been highly successful.

FACTOR 5: PRICE CRITERIA. The Government will evaluate the price proposals of all offerors found technically qualified. Price criterion measure not only actual dollars but also analyze the realism and reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed price and its position in the range of all prices. The price proposals will be evaluated as follows:

Completeness: For completeness, offerors must provide unit prices for all listed items. Incomplete proposals (without required unit prices) may render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

Reasonableness: The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. A inalysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Realism: Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. Proposed pricing will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance.

.4 Balance: Offeror’s proposals will be reviewed for balance. An offeror’s proposal will be determined balanced if there is an absence of unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced.

END OF SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Page(1