SECTION M - Evaluation Factors for Award - Amendment 01.pdf

2021 Inauguration Sound Reinforcement M-1

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Solicitation No. AOCSSB20R0032 2021 Presidential Inauguration Sound Reinforcement

Amendment 01

M.1. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The objective of this evaluation is to select a proposal deemed to be the best overall value to the Government considering technical and price factors for the construction of the 2021 Presidential Inauguration Sound Reinforcement.

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP.

Proposals that do not conform to the requirements in Section L may be deemed non-conforming to the requirements of the RFP and rejected in its entirety without further consideration.

Proposals shall contain only data essential for evaluation of proposals to expedite proposal evaluation.

The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the RFP solicitation at or before the exact time specified in the solicitation. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this solicitation.

Offerors are advised that the sound system designer may assist the AOC in reviewing proposals.

See Section L, Instruction to Offerors, regarding submittal formal and procedures.

Definitions:

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a solicitation requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. A deficient proposal shall not receive contract award.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness in a proposal is a flaw that substantially increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Risk: The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength: An aspect of a proposal that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance or that represents a significant benefit to the Government.

Offeror: The offeror includes the complete offeror’s “team” – i.e., the prime firm and its subcontracting firms, taken as a whole.

M-2

Relevant: “Relevant” means having a logical connection with the requirements in this RFP; that is, featuring work that is similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to the current requirement.

Technical Ratings:

In determining which proposal offers the best value to the Government, the AOC shall use the following adjectival ratings:

Outstanding: The proposal provides a very clear, comprehensive and detailed response which meets all requirements and includes significant strengths with no deficiencies or 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 includes 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 includes 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 includes 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 includes 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.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS: The Government will evaluate the factors outlined below to determine which proposal offers the best value. The evaluation factors are listed below with their relative importance. Note that some of the factors and subfactors are equal in importance.

Factor Number Description Relative Importance

FACTOR A TECHNICAL APPROACH Factor A and Factor B are equal in importance and are the most important factors.

FACTOR B RELEVANT TEAM Factor B and A are equal in

M-3

EXPERIENCE importance and are the most importance factors.

FACTOR C

KEY PERSONNEL

Factor C is less important than Factors A and B, but equal in importance to Factor D

FACTOR D

MANAGEMENT

APPROACH

Factor D is equal in importance as Factor C, and more important than Factor E.

FACTOR E PAST PERFORMANCE Factor E is the least important factor.

Factor A – Technical Approach: Proposals will be evaluated as follows for Factor A:

The technical approach will be evaluated to determine if the proposed plans for scheduling and carrying out the work are efficient and effective, comply with the solicitation requirements, and whether the proposed staffing, materials, and equipment are appropriate. The technical approach will also be evaluated to ensure that efficient and timely completion of the work.

The proposed listing of equipment will be evaluated to determine if it is complete relative to the requirements of the solicitation. Proposals will also be evaluated to determine if all material required in Section J, Attachment No. 3 are included with the proposal.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the proposed powering capabilities of the complete system are reasonably sufficient/sustainable in the event of a power failure.

The proposed schedule will be evaluated to determine the order in which the Contractor proposes to do the work and that it is within the contract period of performance. The schedule will be reviewed to ensure that there is adequate coordination with other performing work indicated on the drawings such that it will provide assurance of successful and timely completion of the work.

Unrealistically optimistic schedule will not be given additional consideration and may result in a lower rating under this factor.

The on-site staffing plan will be evaluated to ensure proposed staff included relevant labor categories and a reasonably sufficient number of employees per category to assure that services are adequately provided by qualified personnel.

Factor B – Relevant Team Experience: Proposals must demonstrate the prime firm’s experience on relevant projects on at least three (3) of the five submitted projects. Relevant projects include those of a similar scope and complexity.

Projects of national prominence or for similar public events, may receive additional consideration. Projects that demonstrate experience working with the same team of subcontractors proposed for the 2021 Presidential Inaugural Sound System may also receive

M-4 additional consideration. At a minimum, at least one project in the proposal shall demonstrate experience with each of the following areas: each area of experience listed below must be demonstrated in the proposal.

1) Installing 70 volt distributed systems.

2) Interfacing with existing sound system and life safety systems

3) Experience with radio frequency (RF) equipment and frequency coordination (including

RF hearing impaired), and fiber optic signal transmission.

Proposals that demonstrate these areas of experience on multiple projects may receive a higher rating. Moreover, proposals that demonstrate experience coordinate coordinating these efforts on the same project may also receive a higher rating.

Factor C –Key Personnel: The Government’s evaluation of Factor C, and Key Personnel will consist of the identification of the experience that exceeds or does not meet the qualification outlined below.

The required Key Personnel positions and how they will be evaluated are as follows:

1) Corporate Officer: The Corporate Officer should have five years demonstrated experience as the senior officer managing a program of sound system installation requirements. This experience must include acting as the primary individual responsible for interacting with clientele to ensure timely and successful performance of work and address any issue that arise during contract performance. At least one project on the corporate officer’s resume must be directly relevant to the Inaugural Sound System project (outdoor, national significance). The Corporate Officer shall also have a relevant undergraduate degree in a sound engineering or audio related field and must be an employee of the prime.

2) Project Manager: The PM should have five years demonstrated experience as the senior, primary PM on relevant sound system installation / setup projects. This experience must include acting as the primary individual responsible for managing scope, schedule, and budget of those projects. At least one project on the PM’s resume must be directly relevant to the Inaugural Sound System project (outdoor, national significance). The PM shall also have a relevant undergraduate degree in a sound engineering or audio related field and must be an employee of the prime. Resumes that exceed these qualifications may be rated more favorably. The proposal must specifically designate the PM as being 100% committed to this project and must include a letter of commitment for a period covering the duration of the project. The letter of commitment does not count against the 30 page proposal limit.

3) Lead Systems Technician: The lead systems technician should have five years demonstrated experience working as the primary technical point of contact on sound system installation projects. At least one project on the lead technicians resume shall be for a similar high-profile project in an outdoor setting. This individual shall hold no other duties and shall be employed by the Prime Contractor. Resumes that exceed these qualifications may be rated more favorably. The proposal must specifically designate the

M-5

Lead Systems Technician as being 100% committed to this project and must include a letter of commitment for a period covering the duration of the project.

4) QC Manager: The QC Manager should have five years demonstrated experience working in sound system quality control. At least one project on the QC’s resume shall be for work on a similar high-profile sound system. The QC Manager shall be employed by the Prime Contractor. Resumes that exceed these qualifications may be rated more favorably.

NOTE: Any substitutions for these key personnel after award will need approval from the

Contracting Officer. Documentation of qualifications in the same format as above will be needed for those substitutions and they must demonstrate at least the qualifications identified in the initial proposal.

Factor D – Technical Approach:

The Government’s evaluation of Factor D, Technical Approach will consist of the identification of the proposal’s advantages and disadvantages. The Government’s findings will consist of, but not be limited to, the Offeror’s work plan, methods and procedures to be used, including materials and equipment in providing the complex coordination for the successful completion of the requirements. The Government will also evaluated the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear and realistic understanding of the project requirements, associates risks, and unique schedule requirements. The Government will assign an adjectival rating with consideration to the Government’s findings and to the extent that any combination of advantages and/or disadvantages may increase or decrease the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Factor E – Past Performance:

The Government’s evaluation of Factor E, Past Performance, will consist of the assessment of recent and relevant past performance information of the Prime contractor. The Government may review information from any sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and confidence.

The first, relevancy, is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

There are four levels of relevancy as defined below.

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-6

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall receive one of the ratings as defined below.

Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will

Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Factor E – Price (Non-Technical Factor)

The Government will evaluate Factor E, Price for reasonableness, but no rating will be assigned.

The evaluation of the Bid Schedule unit rates and price of the project will collectively be evaluated in determining the overall reasonableness of each offeror’s cost/price proposal and the potential risk factor to the Government. The degree of importance of price as a factor shall become more important when technical proposals are of relatively equal merit. All evaluation factors other than cost or price are significantly more important than cost or price. There may be

M-7 award to a higher cost/priced, higher rated offeror if the offer is sufficiently more advantageous than a lower cost/priced, lower rated offeror to justify the payment of a higher cost/price.