Attach 3 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 OVERVIEW

The selection criteria to be used by the Contracting Officer for selection of Firms to perform the required services specified are defined below. The criteria are divided into the categories listed in Instructions to Offerors titled “PHASE I PROPOSAL AND RELATED SELECTION CRITERIA.” The criteria for award will be evaluated in two phases. The first phase consists of a Qualifications Overview Package. The most highly qualified Firms will be invited to submit a Phase II Technical Package and make an oral presentation. The highest ranked Phase II Firms will be invited to submit a price proposal to propose Indefinite Delivery Indefinity Quantity (IDIQ) labor rates for each year of the eight-year ordering period.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. PRICE WILL NOT BE EVALUATED DURING PHASE I.

2.2. Only Firms’ Qualifications Overview Packages that have been determined to be most highly qualified in Phase I shall be evaluated in Phase II of the evaluation process, which includes the Technical Approach to a sample requirement and oral presentation. After completion of the evaluation of the Technical Approach and oral presentation, the evaluation of the Price Criteria will be combined to make a best value determination.

2.3. The AOC reserves the right to reject any or all Phase I and Phase II submissions and may waive informalities and minor irregularities in submissions received.

2.4. The Government intends to make award(s) without discussions, however if it is determined that a qualification package needs further clarification, then discussions may be held with any Firm to clarify their submission. If discussions are conducted with a Firm, they will be given the opportunity to revise their packages, if applicable. A Firm whose Qualifications Overview Package is determined to be unacceptable (did not meet minimum criterion, incomplete, and/or with no opportunity to receive contract award) may be eliminated from further consideration and will not participate in Phase II.

2.5. After review and evaluation of the Qualifications Overview Packages, the Evaluation

Board will rate the submissions and provide recommendations to the Contracting Officer of which companies are most highly qualified and should be considered for Phase II of the procurement. Those companies selected to participate in Phase II will be notified by the AOC and an amendment will be posted to SAM.gov indicating the proposal due date for submission of Phase II packages.

2.6. Evaluations from Phase I will only be used to select the “short list” of Firms invited to propose in Phase II. Phase II ratings will stand alone in selection of the awardees, however commitments made by Firms in Phase I shall apply Phase II and the subsequent contract award.

3.0 PHASE I EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1. Each Firm’s submission will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed below to determine whether it is responsive to the requirements of the selection criteria and therefore acceptable. Firms not meeting several minimum requirements identified herein will not receive further review. Package sections shall not exceed the maximum number of pages limitations.

3.2. STANDARD FORM 33, REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS

3.2.1. The SF 33, Representations and Certifications, and unequivocal letters of commitment will not be scored or rated. No pricing submission is required during Phase I. Note - The SF 33 will only be issued to the highest qualified Firms following Phase II evaluations.

3.3. EVALUATION CRITERIA 1: EVALUATION OF PRIME CONSULTANT

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

3.3.1. Description of Firm and its capabilities:

3.3.1.1. Considered a met requirements if description includes all items listed in instructions to offerors, 4.1, and the Firm has a minimum of ten (10) years of experience in government and/or institutional work.

3.3.1.2. Will be given additional consideration if engineering services work makes up at least 50% of the Firm’s revenues.

3.3.2. Project Experience:

3.3.2.1. Considered a weakness or significant weakness if project descriptions do not meet minimum characteristics as stated in the Instruction to Offerors, 4.1.2.

3.3.2.2.Will be given additional consideration if work involves phased construction.

3.3.2.3. Will be given additional consideration if projects have multiple subconsultants.

3.3.2.4.Will be given additional consideration if project has completed construction, and the Firm performed construction administration services.

3.3.3. Prime Consultant Management Key Personnel:

3.3.3.1. Considered a met requirement if resumes meet the minimum requirements as stated in The Instructions to Offerors, 4.1.3.

3.3.3.2. Will be given additional consideration if key personnel successfully performed the same role for any of the projects submitted under Criteria 1.

3.3.3.3. Project Managers will be given additional consideration if they work full time within a 50-mile radius from the United States Capitol Complex.

3.4. EVALUATION CRITERIA 2: SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND

TECHINCAL COMPETENCE AND KEY PERSONNEL

3.4.1. Considered a met requirement if material includes all items listed in the Instruction to Offerors, 4.2.

3.4.2. Team organizational chart:

3.4.2.1.Considered a met requirement if chart includes all team members and their locations.

3.4.2.2.Will be given additional consideration if organizational structure demonstrates clearly defined functions and relationships.

3.4.3. Specific Project experience:

3.4.3.1.Considered a weakness or significant weakness if project descriptions do not meet the minimum characteristics as stated in the Instruction to Offerors, 4.2.4.

3.4.4. Technical Key Personnel:

3.4.4.1. Considered a met requirement if resumes meet the minimum requirements as stated in the Instructions to Offerors, 4.2.5

3.4.4.2.May be given extra consideration if resumes demonstrate experience performing the same role on the submitted projects under Criteria 1.

3.5. EVALUATION CRITERIA 3: EVALUATION OF FIRMS’ PAST

PERFORMANCE

3.5.1. Past performance will be reviewed to assess confidence in the Firm’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements. For past performance information to be considered, all items specified in the Instructions to Offerors, 4.3 shall be included. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the Prime Consultant Experience Overview and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposals, and/or to review other recent projects rated in CPARS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact Firm finished references, or to review personal knowledge.

3.5.2. The Government will consider how well the Firm performed on the projects. The Government will consider the currency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on project with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance rating than projects of lesser relevance. If any Firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member.

3.5.3. The Government places higher value on projects which documents successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, such as telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, past performance questionnaires, CPARS, and Firm furnished references. The Government places higher value on projects which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve issues successfully. Considered a met requirement if all specified items in The Instructions to Offerors, 4.3 are included.

3.6. EVALUATION CRITERIA 4: EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.6.1. Narrative on management approach:

3.6.1.1. Considered a met requirement if all items specified in the Instructions to Offerors, 4.4.1 are included.

3.6.1.2.The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall team and management approach, how well it is organized, structured, and staffed to execute the entire scope of work.

3.6.1.3.The Government places higher value on narratives that demonstrate exceptional teaming relationship and subcontractor management that support aggressive schedules on simultaneous tasks.

3.6.2. Narrative on complying with AOC security policies and procedures for both Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and classified information:

3.6.2.1.Considered a met requirement if all items specified in The Instructions to Offerors, 4.4.2 are addressed.

3.6.2.2.Will be given additional consideration if company shows ability to process and/or store information at higher classification levels.

3.7. EVALUATION CRITERIA 5: EVALUATION OF CAPACITY

3.7.1. Considered a met requirement if all information specified in The Instructions to

Offerors, 4.5 are addressed.

3.7.2. Will be given additional consideration if company shows ability to add additional capacity in a timely manner.

3.8. EVALUATION CRITERIA 6: EVALUATION OF LOCATION EXPERIENCE

3.8.1. Location of Prime and Sub-consultants:

3.8.1.1.Considered a met requirement if the submission includes demonstrated knowledge and expertise of Prime or Sub-consultants’ planning and design work in Washington, DC’s Monumental Core area.

3.8.1.2.Will be given additional consideration if Prime’s demonstrated knowledge and expertise in the Monumental Core area includes work for federal and local government clients.

3.8.1.3.Will be given additional consideration if Firm’s office are located within 50 miles of Washington, DC’s Monumental Core area.

4.0 PHASE II EVALUATION

4.1. PHASE II PRESENTATIONS WILL BE EVALUATED UNDER THE SIX (6)

PHASE I EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA 7: PRICING

4.1.1. Considered a met requirement if prices for all staff listed in Schedule B are included.

4.1.2. Considered a met requirement if prices are within a met requirement ranges for each staff position.

4.1.2.1. Provides price realism consistent with FAR 15.404-1(b).

4.1.2.2. Is error free and materially balanced.

RATING DEFINITIONS

The following below descriptive evaluation ratings will be used when evaluating the SF330 submission technical elements:

Evaluation Definition Significant Strength A strength that appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Strength Any aspect of a proposal which meets or exceeds a requirement and increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A weakness that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

The rating definitions below shall be used on all non-Price Criteria except for Past Performance.

Outstanding The firm provides a very clear, comprehensive, and detailed response which meets all requirements and may include significant strengths with no deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

Good The firm 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 offeror demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Acceptable The firm provides a response which can meet 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 offeror demonstrates a general understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Marginal The firm 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 offeror does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in unsatisfactory performance.

Unacceptable The firm 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 offeror does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and will result in unsatisfactory performance.

The rating definitions below shall be used for Past Performance.

Substantial Confidence

Based on the firm’s recent (3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the firm will successfully perform.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the firm’s recent (3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the firm will successfully perform.

Limited Confidence

Based on the firm’s recent (3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the firm will successfully perform.

No Confidence

Based on the firm’s recent (3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance record, the Government has no expectation that the firm will successfully perform.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

The firm does not have recent (3 years) and relevant (similar in magnitude and scope of this effort) performance; or the firm’s performance record is so sparse; a meaningful confidence rating cannot be reasonably assigned.

-- End of Attachment 3 --