Attach 3 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

AOCACB24R0002 April 19, 2024 Section M - Evaluation Criteria

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Overview

1.1 Basis for Award: A Tradeoff decision in accordance with AOC Order 34-1, Section 9.1.2.(a) for a best value award decision. The Government will conduct a competitive source selection.

1.1.1 The objective of the source selection is to select the proposal(s) that best meet the requirements of the solicitation and to obtain the best value for the AOC.

1.1.2 All evaluation factors, other than price, are of equal importance and 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.

1.1.3 While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Awards will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposals conform to all required terms and conditions, include all required representations and certifications, meet all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provide the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award approximately three (3) contracts.

Discussions: The Government intends to make award without discussions. To streamline the proposal evaluation process, the evaluation team will suspend evaluation of a proposal if, during evaluation, an evaluation factor is unacceptable. However, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government, to enter discussions, the Government reserves the right to revisit those proposals that were previously suspended prior to establishing the competitive range.

1.3 Solicitation Requirements: Offerors are required to meet solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. In accordance with clause AOC52.215-5(b), the AOC may reject any or all proposals, and may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

1.4 Proposal Evaluation Approach:

1.4.1 Review all timely proposals for compliance with the solicitation requirements. Offerors whose proposals do not follow the solicitation may be removed from consideration.

1.4.2 Evaluate proposals in accordance with “Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award.” A streamlined approach to proposals will be accomplished as outlined in Discussions paragraph above.

1.4.3 Select only the highest qualified Offeror(s) for award.

1.4.4 Inform all Offerors of the AOCs award decision. Those Offerors not selected for award will have the opportunity to request a debriefing.

1.5 Technical Ratings/Definitions

1.5.1 The AOC utilizes an adjectival rating system to evaluate proposals. Factors 1-5 will be assigned a rating from the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). If a proposal receives an unacceptable rating in an evaluation factor the evaluation panel will suspend evaluating the remainder of the proposal. Post the panels technical evaluation of submitted proposals the AOC reserves the right to revisit any proposal that was previously suspended and resume evaluation of the remainder proposal. However, the Offeror is reminded that the AOC reserves the right to award based on initial proposals without discussions. The definitions are listed below.

Technical Adjectival Rating Definitions Rating Definition Outstanding The proposal provides a very clear, comprehensive and detailed response which meets all requirements and may include significant strengths with no deficiencies nor significant weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

Good The proposal provides a sound response which meets all requirements and may include strengths with no deficiencies and few weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Acceptable The proposal provides a response which is capable of meeting all requirements but may include both strengths and weaknesses with no deficiencies. Strengths are not outweighed by the weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate as the proposal demonstrates a general understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Marginal The proposal provides a response which does not meet all requirements and may include strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies. Strengths are outweighed by the weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in unsatisfactory performance.

Unacceptable The proposal provides a response that does not meet all requirements and may include significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies which far outweigh any strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and will result in unsatisfactory performance.

The rating definitions below shall be used for Past Performance.

Past Performance Rating Definitions Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent (10 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent (10 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent (10 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the offeror will successfully perform.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent (10 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

The offeror does not have recent (10 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance; or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse; a meaningful confidence rating cannot be reasonably assigned.

2.0 Evaluation Criteria

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

2.2 The SF 1442 and Representations & Certifications will not be scored or rated.

2.3 Evaluation Factors.

Factor 1: Specialized Construction Management Experience Factor 2: Design/ Build Experience Factor 3: Key Personnel Factor 4: Management Approach Factor 5: Safety Plan Factor 6: Past Performance Factor 7: Pricing

2.4 FACTOR 1 - Specialized Construction Management Experience:

2.4.1 To be considered acceptable, proposals must include recent/relevant experience managing multi-discipline three (3) construction projects within the last 10 years with a project value between approximately $250,000 and $2,000,000. This project value range represents a rough order of magnitude to evaluate project relevance and is not intended to establish maximum or minimum project value requirements. Projects that were concurrent with other recent and relevant projects will be rated more favorably.

Additionally, projects in historic and/or occupied buildings will also be given a more favorable rating. Additional consideration will be given to Offerors that demonstrate self-performance in specific trades.

2.5 FACTOR 2 - Design/ Build Experience: The Government will evaluate the offerors response to the requirements identified in Section L Paragraph 4.2 and its subparagraphs.

2.5.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s experience completing Design/ Build (D/B) projects. The Government will evaluate the extent of recent related experience of the Contractor in the prime role to the D/B project. The Government will evaluate up to three

(3) D/B projects completed by the Offeror. The Government will make the determination on what past project(s) submitted by the Offeror are similar to the project in this RFP.

Federal Government project experience will not be rated inherently more important than non-Federal Government project experience. The Government will evaluate the strength, weaknesses, and any deficiencies to the relevant projects and corporate experience of the Offerors in accordance with the requirements set forth in this Section M.

2.5.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to manage design professionals and other subcontractors as it relates to D/B projects. The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and any deficiencies in the Offeror’s overall project management plan to complete D/B services to this procurement.

2.5.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s response to mitigate risk, cost overrun, and schedule delays implementing D/B services to this procurement. The Government places a higher value on an offer that provides proposed methods to streamline construction, manage labor, risk, and other resources in an effort to “reduce costs” and support an “aggressive schedule”.

2.6 FACTOR 3 - Key Personnel:

2.6.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed key personnel for the following functions: (1) Project Executive (2) Project Manager, (3) Superintendent, (4) Quality Control Manager, (5) Alternate Quality Control Manager,(6) Safety Officer, and (7) D/B Architect and/or Engineer. Resumes for proposed key personnel shall be evaluated to determine if their background, education, and experience meet the minimum qualifications in Section L, Section 4.3.

2.6.2 Additional consideration will be given to Offerors who propose Key Personnel with experience managing multiple and concurrent projects as described in SOW 1.4 Scope

2.6.3 Additional consideration will be given to Offerors who propose Key Personnel who have either worked together on previous projects or contracts and/or were involved with the projects provided in response to Factor 1.

2.7 FACTOR 4 - Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the materials submitted in response to Factor 4 and in section L 4.4 as follows:

2.7.1 To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must submit materials as described in Section L

4.4. The Government will consider materials submitted to evaluate the Offeror’s ability to reasonably accommodate anticipated work described in Attachment 1 – Section C - Statement of Work (SOW).

2.7.2 The Government will evaluate the proposed Contract Management Plan, which demonstrates that adequate methods are in place to ensure exceptional project management and client service on multiple construction projects. Offerors demonstrating innovative management approaches and policies for concurrent construction projects will be rated more favorably.

2.7.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to successfully select and manage subcontractors. The proposed management plan must show Offeror has relationships with multiple (single and/or multi-discipline) subcontractors which possess experience in areas listed in SOW 1.4 Scope. The offeror shall describe a methodical process for evaluating potential subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process and a logical management plan to hold them accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

2.7.4 The Government will evaluate the proposed plans to ensure they are of sufficient detail as to clearly demonstrate ability to accomplish multiple task orders simultaneously and within compressed time schedules. The narrative shall also be evaluated to determine if the Offeror's description of how the Offeror plans to comply with and respond to unplanned/unscheduled Government operational requirements, to include emergencies, is reasonable.

2.7.5 The Government will evaluate information technology security processes and controls and how these measures will be used to protect AOC’s data in response to Section L 4.4.4.

2.7.6 The Government will evaluate the materials submitted in response to Section L 4.4.5 as follows: The Government will consider the proposed Corporate Quality Control Plan and demonstrated experience with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Construction Quality Management (CQM) program. Additionally, the Government will consider evidence that Key Personnel proposed with responsibility for Quality Control have successfully completed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Construction Quality Management (CQM) Training Course and obtained certification within the last 5 years.

2.7.7 The Government will evaluate the materials submitted in response to section L 4.4.6 as follows: The Government will evaluate submitted materials to determine if the proposals demonstrate innovative technical and management approaches the Offeror uses for effective administration and management of a construction contracts’ schedule, scope, cost, and risk. The Government will consider the Offeror’s approach to proactively determine when a project is out of tolerance and the action(s) which would be used in bringing a project back into tolerance.

2.7.7.1 Construction Management Software: The Government will consider proposals that demonstrate an Offeror’s level of experience with web-based construction management software. The Government will give additional consideration for proposals that demonstrate experience with e-Builder and its ability to utilize this software on AOC projects, immediately upon award of a Task Order.

2.7.7.2 Scheduling Methodology: The Government will consider proposals that demonstrate an Offeror’s level of experience in scheduling and project planning methodology. The Government will give additional consideration for proposals that demonstrate experience in providing and proactively managing a construction project’s progress schedule in digital CPM format, using the most current Primavera software (P6), cost-and resource-loaded schedule with a related narrative, and cash flow project curves.

2.8 FACTOR 5 - Safety Program: The Government will evaluate the materials submitted in response to Factor 5 in section L 4.5 as follows:

2.8.1 The Offeror must submit a copy of their Corporate Health and Safety Plan. The

Government will consider the Offeror’s corporate health & safety program for compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The plan shall also include Corporate Safety Personnel and their qualifications that shall meet or exceed the JOC Safety Officer qualifications. Refer to Section L 4.3.2.6 for requirements and qualifications of the JOC IDIQ Safety Officer.

2.8.2 Offerors must show their ability to comply with health and safety requirements by completing a questionnaire outlining their program components, incident history, and training programs for the previous three (3) years. The enclosed Safety Program Questionnaire shall be completed and submitted by Offerors.

2.8.3 The Government will consider all materials submitted to determine the Offeror’s past performance as measured by OSHA 300/300A reporting and Worker’s Compensation Experience Modification Rate (EMR) that demonstrate performance that is acceptable when compared to other companies in the industry. The Government may not accept Offerors that have incident statistics or workers’ compensation experience modification rates exceeding industry average for the Offeror’s industry without written explanation acceptable to the Government.

2.8.4 The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information including but not limited to OSHA data. Furthermore, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Safety Past Performance included in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) submitted in Factor 6 as part of this Factor as well.

2.9 FACTOR 6 - Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the materials submitted in response to Factor 6 in section L 4.6 as follows:

2.9.1 The Government will evaluate the proposed Past Performance Information (PPI) based upon CPARS records. If CPARS records are not available the government may consider information received from the prospective Offeror’s reference responses to the Past Performance Questionnaires, and from any other reliable source available to the AOC such as an official past performance database and/or other Government and local agencies. The AOC will assign each Offeror an overall past performance rating based on confidence.

2.9.2 The Government will assess if past performance is deemed recent and relevant. Recency is defined as substantially completed efforts in the past ten (10) years. Projects not substantially completed in the past 10 years will not be evaluated. Relevancy is defined as construction work listed in the Statement of Work completed during the last ten (10) years prior to the issuance of this solicitation, similar in size and scope of the proposed contract. Offerors are required to submit PPI for the Factor 1 projects to demonstrate recent and relevant past performance.

2.9.3 The Government will assess the degree of success of Offeror’s recent and relevant experience. Offerors demonstrating a higher level of successful past performance in the evaluated areas will be more favorably rated. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

2.9.4 In lieu of unavailable CPARS, the enclosed AOC Past Performance Questionnaires shall be provided to each of the companies/agencies submitted by the Offeror in response to this solicitation. The questionnaire(s) must be e-mailed by the companies/agencies to the attention Renko Hardison at renko.hardison@aoc.gov by the date established for receipt of offers in order to be considered in the evaluation process. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that Past Performance Questionnaires are completed and submitted timely by customer references, and that correct names, addresses, and phone numbers are provided in the proposals for each reference. An Offeror will not be penalized in the evaluation with an unfavorable rating for the failure of its customer references to complete and submit the Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government may contact Offeror customer references or use other references/information to verify past performance.

2.10 FACTOR 7 - Price:

2.10.1 Section B Price Schedule:

2.10.1.1 A completed Section B Price Schedule with rates proposed shall be submitted with proposals. The overhead rate proposed in the Section B Price Schedule shall include all field and home office and Key Personnel overhead rates. For an example of allowable overhead elements, see contract clause AOC52.243-1 Changes Supplement (July 2022), para. (d).

2.10.1.2 Contractor to use the enclosed “CSI Bid Form Template” as a summary sheet for all proposals.

2.10.2 Sample Project Pricing. The offeror shall price the Sample Project in accordance with the pricing information specified in L.4.7.

2.11 Bond Capability:

2.11.1 Each Offeror shall provide proof from the Offeror’s Surety company that the Offeror has, as a minimum, $2,000,000 per project and $10,000,000 in aggregate in available bonding capability. Proof shall be evidenced by a letter from the Offeror’s Surety Company and included in Volume II of their proposal.

2.11.2 Offeror’s unable to obtain bonding at the specified levels are ineligible for award.

2.11.3 The bond letter shall be from a surety listed in the Department of Treasury Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies” as of April 19, 2024.

mailto:renko.hardison@aoc.gov