Attach 5 - Section M - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

AOCACB25R0006 November 28, 2024 Section M – Evaluation Criteria

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Overview

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

1.1.1 Step One: The basis of the Government’s determination for an offeror to progress to Step

Two is that its Step One proposal presents itself as amongst the most qualified of offerors with consideration of the following factors which are of equal importance and weight:

Factor 1: Specialized Construction Management Experience; Factor 2: Key Personnel;

and Factor 3: Past Performance. Price is neither requested nor will be evaluated during Step One. The Step One evaluations and ratings are for the sole purpose of identifying the most qualified offerors to progress to Step Two.

1.1.2 Step Two: The Step Two evaluation shall be conducted independently of the Step One evaluations and its findings. There shall be no expectation that the Government will refer to the Step One Proposal for any information while conducting the evaluation of the Step Two proposal. Step Two technical factors, as outlined in Paragraph 3.2 of this section, are of equal importance and 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.

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 responsible offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides 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 to approximately five

(5) contracts. The Government reserves the right to award more than or fewer than the target number of five (5) contracts as a result of this solicitation.

1.3 Discussions: The Government intends to make award without discussions, however if it is determined that a qualification package needs further clarification, then discussions may be held with any offeror to clarify their submission. If and when discussions are conducted with an offeror, they will be given the opportunity to revise their proposal, if applicable. Offerors whose qualifications package is determined to be unacceptable (e.g. did not meet minimum criterion, incomplete, and/or with no opportunity to receive contract award) may be eliminated form further consideration and will not participate in Step 2 of the RFP process.

1.4 Solicitation Requirements: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. 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(a), the AOC may reject any or all proposals, and may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

1.5 Proposal Evaluation Approach:

1.5.1 Review all timely proposals for completeness. Offerors shall ensure all requirements in

“Section L – Instructions to Offerors” are followed in exact accordance. Offerors whose proposals do not follow the solicitations may be removed from consideration.

1.5.2 Evaluate all complete, Step 1 proposals.

1.5.3 Select only the most highly qualified Step 1 proposals to participate in the Step 2 evaluation. Only offers’ qualification packages that have been determined to be most highly qualified in Step 1 shall be invited to participate in Step 2 of the RFP process.

Those firms, anticipated not to exceed 12, will be invited to submit their Step 2 proposals.

1.5.4 Inform offerors of those who were selected to participate in Step 2 and those who were not selected to participate. Offerors not selected to participate in Step 2 will have the opportunity to request a debriefing. Offerors selected to participate in Step 2 will be notified of when the Step 2 RFIs and proposals are required to be submitted.

1.5.5 Review all timely Step 2 proposals for completeness.

1.5.6 Evaluate all complete, Step 2 proposals. Offerors shall ensure all requirements in

“Section L – Instructions to Offerors” are followed in exact accordance. Offerors whose proposals do not follow the solicitations may be removed from consideration.

1.5.7 Select only the highest qualified Step 2 proposals for award. The AOC anticipates awarding up to five (5) offerors however the AOC reserves the right to select more or less depending on the quality of the offers received.

1.5.8 Inform all Step 2 offerors of the AOCs award decision. Those offerors not selected for award will have the opportunity to request a debriefing.

1.6 Technical Ratings/Definitions

1.6.1 The AOC uses an adjectival rating system to evaluate proposals. Each factor and subfactor will be assigned a rating from the Technical Evaluation. Any factor or subfactor assigned an “Unacceptable” rating will render the entire proposal unacceptable and will be ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. 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 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.

2.0 Step One (1) 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. Offerors not meeting the minimum requirements identified herein will not receive further review under Step 1.

2.2 Step 1 proposals do not need to include SF 1442 Representations & Certifications. The SF 1442, Representations & Certifications will not be scored or rated.

2.3 No pricing submission is required during Step One.

2.4 Step 1 Evaluation Factors.

Factor 1: Specialized Construction Management Experience Factor 2: Key Personnel Factor 3: Past Performance

2.5 FACTOR 1 - Specialized Construction Management Experience:

2.5.1 To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must have relevant and satisfactory experience as the prime contractor, leading, managing and completing multi-construction projects within the last ten (10) years with a project value of $5,000,000.00 or greater, which required multi-discipline skills to perform, in, on or around occupied historic building(s) and/or historical site(s).

2.5.2 To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must have relevant and satisfactory experience as the prime contractor, leading, managing and completing at least one (1) Design/Build project within the last ten (10) years with a project value of $5,000,000.00 or greater, which required multi-discipline skills to perform, in, on or around occupied historic building(s) and/or historical site(s).

2.5.3 Offerors that fail to provide examples of three (3) such projects which they have as the prime contractor, led, managed and completed, as described in Section L4.2.5 shall not be given any further consideration and shall be determined technically unacceptable for this factor.

2.6 FACTOR 2 - 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) Lead Site Superintendent, (4) Quality Control Manager, and (5) Safety Manager. Resumes for proposed key personnel shall be evaluated to determine if their background, education, and experience is adequate.

2.6.2 Offerors that submit resumes for key personnel who possess less than the minimum years of experience, as detailed in Section L 4.3.2., working in, on or around occupied historic buildings and historical sites and/or without construction and design management experience in areas referenced in Section L 4.2.5.1 through L 4.2.5.14 and Statement of Work, shall not be given any further consideration and shall be determined technically unacceptable for this factor. Failure to submit resumes for any of the key personnel positions listed shall be determined technically unacceptable for this factor and shall not be given any further consideration.

2.7 FACTOR 3 - Past Performance:

2.7.1 The AOC will evaluate the proposed Past Performance Information (PPI) based upon information received from the prospective Offeror’s reference responses to the Past Performance Questionnaires or Final CPARS rating, and from any other reliable source available to the AOC such as an official past performance database and/or other Government and local agencies (e.g., CPARS, FAPIIS, etc.). The AOC will assign each offeror an overall past performance rating based on the confidence.

2.7.2 The AOC will assess if past performance is deemed recent and relevant. Recency is defined as completed efforts in the past ten (10) years. Projects not completed in the past 10 years will not be evaluated. Relevancy is defined as construction work as detailed in the SOW completed during the last ten (10) years prior to the issuance of this solicitation similar to the size and scope of the proposed contract. Offerors are highly encouraged to submit PPI for the Factor 1 projects to demonstrate recent and relevant past performance.

2.7.3 The government will assess the degree of success of Offeror’s recent, 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.

2.7.4 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 of John Lingamfelter at john.lingamfelter@aoc.gov (and copy Roman Davydov at roman.davydov@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. In lieu of a Questionnaire, final CPARS evaluations for projects submitted in response to Factor 1 may be submitted in Factor 3.

3.0 Step Two (2) Evaluation Criteria

3.1 Ratings from Step 1 will only be used to select the “short list” of firms invited to propose in Step 2.

Step 2 ratings will stand alone in selection of the awardee.

3.2 Step 2 Evaluation Factors.

Factor 1: Management Plan Factor 2: Quality Control Program Factor 3: Safety Plan Factor 4: Project Controls Plan

Subfactor 4.1: Schedule Methodology Subfactor 4.2: E-builder Subfactor 4.3: Building Information Modeling (BIM)

Factor 5: Pricing

3.3 Factor 1 - Management Approach: The government will evaluate the materials submitted in response to Factor 1 and in section L 5.2 as follows:

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

L5.2. The government will consider materials submitted to evaluate the Offeror’s ability to reasonably accommodate anticipated work described in Section C.

3.3.2 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. Offerors demonstrating innovative management approaches and policies will be rated higher.

3.3.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to successfully select and manage subcontractors. The proposed management plan must show Offeror has on-going relationships with multi-discipline subcontractors which possess verifiable experience in areas listed in Section L 4.2.5.1 through L 4.2.5.14 and Statement of Work.

3.3.4 The government will evaluate the proposed plans which 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.

3.3.5 The government will evaluate information technology security processes and controls and how these measures will be used to protect AOC’s data.

mailto:john.lingamfelter@aoc.gov mailto:roman.davydov@aoc.gov

3.3.6 The government will evaluate the capability of the Offeror and associated subcontractors’ to meet the specific CAD requirements for contract deliverables as indicated in AOC’s A/E Design Manual.

3.4 Factor 2 - Quality Control Program: The government will evaluate the materials submitted in response to Factor 2 in section L 5.3 as follows:

3.4.1 The government will consider the proposed Quality Control Plan and demonstrated experience with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Construction Quality Management (CQM) program. The government will consider evidence that that Key Personnel proposed with responsibility for Quality Control has successfully completed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Naval Facility Engineering Command Construction Quality Management for Contractors Training Course within the last 5 years.

3.5 Factor 3 - Safety Program: The government will evaluate the materials submitted in response to

Factor 3 in section L 5.4 as follows:

3.5.1 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 AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE shall be completed and submitted by Offerors in Step 2.

3.5.2 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.

3.5.3 The government will consider the Offeror’s corporate health & safety program for compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

3.6 Factor 4 – Project Controls: The government will evaluate the materials submitted in response to

Factor 4 in section L 5.5 as follows:

3.6.1 The government will evaluate submitted materials to determine if the proposals demonstrates innovative technical and management approaches the firm uses for effective administration and management of a construction contracts’ schedule, scope, cost, and risk. The government will consider the company’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.

3.6.1.1 Sub-Factor 4a - Scheduling Methodology: The government will consider proposals that demonstrate a company’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.

3.6.1.2 Sub-Factor 4b – E-Builder: The government will consider proposals that demonstrate a company’s level of experience with E-Builder and its ability to utilize this software on AOC projects, immediately upon award of Task Order.

3.6.1.3 Sub-Factor 4c – Building Information Modeling (BIM): The government will consider proposals that demonstrate a company’s capabilities and experience using Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Construction Operations Information Exchange (COBie).

3.7 FACTOR 5 - Price Information:

3.7.1 Offeror shall provide a detailed breakout of what’s included in the offerors overhead rate as well as a completed price schedule in Section B. The AOC will conduct the following:

3.7.1.1 A price evaluation will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the proposed rates and the allowability of individual price elements. Reasonableness will be determined considering other competitive Overhead and Profit rates received. The Government may look at whether proposed rates are too high or too low. Whether a rate is too high or too low may be considered in the context of comparison to other price proposals or to any other information the contracting officer deems useful in his or her discretion.

3.7.1.2 A price evaluation to determine pricing is not unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated, as indicated by applying price analysis techniques.