Asbestos TEP 12302021.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

TECHNICAL EVALUATION PLAN

Asbestos Abatement Services

Screening Information Request SIR/RFP No. 6973GH-22-R-00035

1.0 This document describes the process and procedures, which will be employed to evaluate, and rate proposals submitted in response to the aforementioned SIR.

1.1 Evaluation Method / Process: Low-Priced, Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

1.2 All technical evaluation team members shall review the specific criteria within the technical proposals using an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating. All offerors will be evaluated for all factors without exception. All ratings, whether “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be documented fully to include the rationale for the rating and a reference to the specific portion of the offeror’s proposal that the evaluator(s) used to determine their rating.

1.3 Price proposal evaluation. The price proposal will be analyzed for reasonableness and balanced pricing among the contract line items (CLINs). It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed and reflects a clear understanding of the Government’s requirements.

1.4 Source Selection Decision. The award will go to the lowest priced offeror who submits a technical proposal that is otherwise technically acceptable when reviewed against all of the factors outlined in the SIR/RFO.

2.0 ORGANIZATION

2.1 Technical Evaluation Team (TET)

Tori Contreras, AMP-100 Robert Griffin, AMP-100 Vicki Ray, AMP-100

The TET Lead will be Vicki Ray, AMP-100.

The Source Selection Official (SSO) will be Joseph Stewart, AAQ-700.

2.2 The technical evaluation team members are responsible for evaluating and rating factors Acceptable/ Unacceptable in their entirety. Evaluation of all proposals shall be in accordance with Sections L and M of the SIR/RFO. Nothing in this plan will be construed to limit the Contracting Officer’s (CO) overall responsibility for the conduct of this procurement in accordance with the principles of the Acquisition Management System (AMS).

2.3 The evaluation team will conform to a high standard of ethical conduct to ensure that the judgments arrived at will be done so objectively, impartially and free of any conflict of interest. The team will safeguard information, which is business sensitive, proprietary, protected by copyright, patent, trade secret or other applicable laws, or the disclosure of which would prejudice the impartial, objective evaluation of submittals. Information submitted will be used only for evaluation purposes for this SIR. Information will be disclosed outside the evaluation team and IPT only within the government on a need to know basis. In the event that a team member believes that a conflict of interest may exist or requires ethical advice on other matters related to this procurement, the team member will notify the CO and seek advice from the agency ethics officer. The CO will document the result of any such matter in the contract file.

2.4. The team members’ roles in evaluation will be as described in paragraph 2 above. There is no present intention to compare submittals to each other. Evaluation will be done by comparing the submittals to the evaluation factors as described in the SIR and/or this plan. However, the evaluation team reserves the right to compare submittals to each other as permitted by the AMS if it should become necessary. The team will make and document the reasons for any such decision. It is the intent of the evaluation team to perform the evaluation and ratings without holding discussions, if possible. If it becomes necessary to hold discussions, the team may decide to hold discussions as needed with one, some or all offerors as authorized by AMS. The decision to hold discussions and the offerors with which they will be held will be documented by the CO in the contract file. References may be verified by the team. Reference verification will be conducted in an equitable manner to ensure that any particular offeror is neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by the process. Any communications held with one or more offerors or references will be coordinated through the entire team to ensure consistency and may be conducted by any member as appointed by the team.

2.5. Team members will document in writing their evaluation and ratings for each factor and subfactor for each offeror (Attachment 1). The documentation must be sufficient to demonstrate that the evaluator examined the submittal and considered the applicable evaluation criteria in arriving at the rating as given. Each team member will evaluate all submittals per the assignments in paragraph 2 above. A final team rating will be given for each factor and subfactor for each offeror. That rating will be documented in writing sufficiently to demonstrate that a rational decision making process took place within the team in accordance with the SIR. The documentation may consist of nothing more than a compilation of the individual members’ documentation, if that is internally consistent and consistent with the final team rating. In the event of dissimilar individual ratings, the team may engage in any appropriate group decision-making technique needed to arrive at a final team rating.

All consensus decisions shall be annotated in the final Technical Evaluation report. Any individual member may submit a dissent to that rating if the rating does not reflect that member’s independent, objective judgment.

3.0 PROCESS

3.1 In general, the offeror and all employees must be properly licensed by the Oklahoma Department of Labor (DOL) and must have no unresolved serious violations on file with the Oklahoma DOL or other state and federal regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over asbestos abatement, transportation and disposal during the two year period prior to the date of bid opening. Each offeror will be specifically evaluated according to the following factors:

3.2 All factors and subfactors will be rated as either acceptable or unacceptable. In order to be considered acceptable for a subfactor, the submittal must reasonably demonstrate compliance with all substantive requirements of that subfactor. All subfactors must be rated as acceptable for a factor to be rated acceptable. All factors must be rated acceptable for a submittal to be rated as acceptable.

All submittals rated as acceptable must pass this initial evaluation process to remain eligible for contract award. All submittals rated as unacceptable will be ineligible for consideration for contract award.

3.3 Notwithstanding any element of this evaluation plan, the evaluation team is to apply judgment in evaluating and rating each submittal, while treating all offerors equitably and protecting the business interests of the FAA. In general, submittals should establish a prima facie case of satisfactory compliance with every substantive requirement of each subfactor. A rating of acceptable is established when documentation as submitted is persuasive to a reasonable reader and is verifiable.

3.4 FACTORS

3.4.1 The source selection evaluation shall be conducted based on four evaluation factors:

Regulatory Compliance, Licenses, Past Experience and Performance. These factors are of equal weight and importance. Ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” are considered to be objective ratings, and are to serve as merely guides for decision making. The SSO is responsible for independently determining if the lowest-priced, technically acceptable firm has proposed a fair and reasonable price and is otherwise eligible for award. Trade-offs are not permitted. Cost will not be scored.

3.4.1.1 Factor 1 - Regulatory Compliance

Factor: Demonstrate that the company has had no serious abatement-related violations for the prior two year period.

Evaluation: The Offeror must submit a statement that the company has had no serious abatement-related violations for the prior two year period, as well as a listing of all violations, including;

the citing agency, a synopsis of the citation and any resulting fines or restrictions, and the citing agency contact person and telephone number. Evaluation will include a compliance check (verification/validation) with references, as well as regulatory agencies.

An Offeror who has had abatement-related violations resulting in issuance of any administrative or civil penalty from a regulatory agency having jurisdiction over asbestos abatement activities or resulting in the Oklahoma DOL suspending, revoking, or refusing to issue a contractor license will be found to be unacceptable and removed from further consideration for award.

3.4.1.2 Factor 2 - Licenses

Factor: The Offeror must hold the appropriate licenses for performing the work at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, OK.

Evaluation: The Offeror must submit a copy of the following current Oklahoma Department of Labor (DOL) issued licenses:

• Asbestos Abatement Contractor, AND

• Operations and Maintenance Contractor (or letter from the Oklahoma DOL approving the Offeror's Operations and Maintenance Program, if a separate license was not issued), AND

• Asbestos Abatement Supervisor for the General Superintendent.

An Offeror who does not hold the appropriate licenses for performing the work will be found to be unacceptable and be removed from further consideration for award.

3.4.1.3 Factor 3 - Past Experience and Performance

3.4.1.3.1 Subfactor 1 - Past Experience

Subfactor: Demonstrate the experience of the Offeror on abatement projects or operations and maintenance contracts same/similar to that described in the Performance Work Statement.

The Offeror shall complete two (2), “Experience Information” forms, Attachment 2, for abatement projects or operations and maintenance contracts in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete. All projects submitted must have been underway or completed with the last three (3) years. If the Offeror does not have prior prime contracts to cite, then the Offeror may cite instances on which it has served as a primary subcontractor.

If any of the information required is not included in the form then the Offeror will be considered non-responsive and evaluated as unacceptable.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government will review the project experience of the offeror on projects provided on the Experience Information forms. Offerors must meet all of the following minimum acceptability standards to receive an “Acceptable” on this factor:

• Offeror must have two (2) projects that are same/similar to that of the work found in this solicitation; AND

• Projects submitted must have been completed, or underway, within the last 3 years.

Failure to demonstrate the minimally acceptability standards under this factor will result in an “Unacceptable” rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award.

3.4.1.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Past Performance

Subfactor: Past performance will be evaluated based upon information received by the FAA from individuals and organizations that the Offeror has identified as being familiar with the work ethic, standards, performance, and deliverables demonstrated through previous or ongoing contracts of a similar nature, including but not limited to projects submitted under Factor 3, Subfactor 1, Past Experience.

Past performance shall demonstrate ability to deliver quality product/services, maintain compliant facilities, demonstrate ability to achieve program objectives; and demonstrate overall performance on same/similar work.

Evaluation Criteria: The Government will review all formal evaluations for projects submitted under Factor 3, Subfactor 1 and may use any/all other sources of past performance information for same / similar work, or other projects, available to the Government. The Government may contact points of contacts listed on the “Organizational Experience Information” forms submitted under Subfactor 1. Offerors must demonstrate the following minimum acceptability standards to receive an “Acceptable” on this factor:

• All past or current references must recommend either hiring or using the offeror again for future work and/or reflect positive performance of the work requirements.

Failure to demonstrate the minimally acceptable criteria under this factor will result in an “Unacceptable” rating and elimination from further consideration for contract award. Offerors with no past performance information will receive an “Unacceptable” rating for this factor.

3.4.1.4 Factor 4 – Emergency Response Plan

Factor: Emergency Response Plan: The Emergency Response Plan must outline how the offeror will meet the 24 hour/7 days per week response requirement. The plan must include notification procedures and a schedule with response times.

Evaluation: The Offeror must submit an Emergency Response Plan which outlines the following:

• Notification Procedure, AND

• Schedule of response times.

An Offeror who does not provide an Emergency Response Plan which demonstrates how the offeror will meet the 24 hour/7 days per week response requirement will be found unacceptable and be removed from further consideration for award.

All criteria must be deemed acceptable by the evaluator(s) for the Offeror to be qualified for further consideration.

3.5 PRICE

3.5.1 No pricing information shall be included in the technical proposals.

3.5.2 The Price Evaluation Team will rank firms in order of price and provide an analysis as to the acceptability of the price, and will determine if the price is fair and reasonable through comparison with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), other offerors submitting proposals for the same action, and against industry standards. The Price Team will evaluate costs and determine if the Offeror is able to project costs which are reasonable, real, and balanced, which indicate the Offeror understands the nature of the work to be performed.

4.0 SCORING

4.1 Comparing. The evaluation team will not compare one proposal against another.

4.2 Criteria. Each evaluator will use the following criteria to measure and score each proposal.

Scoring will reflect the extent to which the Offeror has met the overall factor requirements. Upon completion of the evaluation of each factor by a member of the evaluation team, the member will determine the appropriate ratings. Evaluation factors will be scored as outlined below to which the Offeror has met the overall factor requirements.

Rating Description and/or definition

“Acceptable” Offeror’s proposal meets all requirements of the factor and evaluation criteria, without exception.

“Unacceptable” Offeror’s proposal is lacking one or more of the requirements of the factor and evaluation criteria.

4.3 Weighting Factors. There is no weighting of factors under this acquisition since the evaluation method/process is Low-Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA).

5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT

There is no separate risk assessment for the factors under this acquisition since the evaluation method/process is Low-Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA).

_________________________ _December 30, 2021_ Vicki Ray, AMP-100 Date

Joseph Stewart, AAQ-700 Date

ATTACHMENT 1

Offeror Name: _________________________________ Date: _____________________

Reviewer: _________________

ASBESTOS ABATEMENT

TECHNICAL EVALUATION PLAN REVIEW

SIR/RFO 6973GH-22-R-00035

(Complete one form for each Offeror.)

This is an objective evaluation. The rating will be either “Acceptable” (A) or “Unacceptable” (U) against the criteria/measurement in the SIR/RFO. The rationale for the rating, whether A or U, will be documented below.

Factor 1 - Regulatory Compliance Individual Consensus

a. Did the Offeror submit a statement that the company has had no serious abatement-related violations for the prior two year period, as well as a listing of violations, including; the citing agency, a synopsis of the citation and any resulting fines or restrictions, and the citing agency contact person and telephone number?

A U A U

b. A compliance check (verification/validation) was completed, with no serious violation(s) from a regulatory agency having jurisdiction over asbestos activities.

Factor 2 - Licenses

a. Did the Offeror provide a copy of their current Asbestos Abatement Contractor

License?

b. Did the Offeror provide a copy of their current Operations and Maintenance

Contractor license (or letter from the Oklahoma DOL approving the Offeror's Operations and Maintenance Program, if a separate license was not issued)?

Factor 2, cont’d Individual Consensus

c. Did the Offeror provide a copy of the current Asbestos Abatement Supervisor

License for the General Superintendent?

Factor 3 - Past Experience and Performance

Subfactor 1-Past Experience

The Offeror shall complete two (2), “Experience Information” forms, Attachment 2, for abatement projects or operations and maintenance contracts in response to this factor. All blocks must be filled in and all data should be accurate, current, and complete.

If any of the information required is not included in the form then the Offeror will be considered non-responsive and evaluated as unacceptable.

• Offeror must have two (2) projects that are same/similar to that of the work found in this solicitation; AND

• Projects submitted must have been completed, or underway, within the last

3 years.

A U A U

Subfactor 2-Past Performance

b. All past or current references must recommend either hiring or using the offeror again for future work and/or reflect positive performance of the work requirements.

Factor 4 – Emergency Response Plan

a. Did the Offeror provide notification procedures in their Emergency Response

Plan?

b. Did the Offeror provide a schedule of their response times in their Emergency

Response Plan that meets the 24 hours/7 day response requirement?

ATTACHMENT 2

ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE INFORMATION

(To be completed by Offeror)

1. Offeror:

Name:

Address:

2. Contract /Task Order(TO) /Purchase Order (PO) Number:

3. Contract/TO/PO Dollar Value:

4. Contract/TO /PO Status: Active Complete

Completion Date (w/ extensions):

5. Project Title:

Location:

6. Project Description-- to include the role of the Offeror on the project and specific responsibilities of the Offeror in performance of the effort:

7. Would you hire or use this Offeror again for future work?

8. Client or Project Manager for the Client – provide:

Client Name:

POC Name:

Address:

Telephone Number and E-mail:

ATTACHMENT 3

LPTA EVALUATION

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

SIR NUMBER: 6973GH-22-R-00035

PROJECT: Asbestos Abatement Services, MMAC

The rating has been determined to be either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” against the criteria/ measurement in the SIR/RFO.

Following is the summary findings:

Offeror Name

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Acceptable for Award? (Y/N)

Firm A Firm B Firm C