Attachment_0004_-_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

RFP 140P5521R0017 Page 1 of 5

Section M – Evaluation Factors

Christiansted National Historic Site Metal Conservation

July 6, 2021

I. INTRODUCTION

Description of Requirement – The Government plans to solicit for, and award work for Metal Conservation at Christiansted National Historic Site in the U.S. Virgin Islands. These services will be procured as a 100% small business set aside.

The Government will use a tradeoff process for this source selection. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation requirements and provides the best value to the Government considering the stated evaluation factors and price. It may be in the best interest of the Government to award to other than to the lowest price or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. For this solicitation, all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are of equal importance to price. Technical and price proposals shall be submitted individually.

The following evaluation factors will be used:

1. Evaluation Factor I – Technical Proposal

a) Subfactor 1 – Previous Project Experience

b) Subfactor 2 – Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel

c) Subfactor 3 – Work Plan

2. Evaluation Factor II – Past Performance

3. Evaluation Factor III - Price

II. SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION PROCESS (BEST VALUE)

A. Proposals will be evaluated IAW the factors as established in Section L of the RFP. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical evaluation. The SSET will not have access to Evaluation Factor III, the price information until completion of the technical evaluations of Evaluation Factors I and II.

B. After completion of the evaluations considering all three Evaluation Factors, the SSET will report the results to the CONTRACTING OFFICER (CO). The CO will then consider all factors to determine the offer that provides the overall best value to the Government. The CO's decision will be based on a comparative assessment of the proposals against the source selection factors specified in the solicitation and detailed below under Evaluation Factors.

C. The Government may elect to accept other than the lowest priced proposal when the perceived benefits of a higher priced proposal merit the additional cost or may award to other than the highest technically rated proposal.

D. Offeror’s Responsibility: It shall be the offeror’s responsibility to provide all the components of complete technical and price proposals as detailed in the Evaluation

RFP 140P5521R0017 Page 2 of 5

Factors. Complying with all specifications herein shall be the responsibility of the offeror Project

III. EVALUATION FACTORS

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are equal to price. Technical subfactors are of equal importance.

A. Evaluation Factor I – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Previous Project Experience: Provide a minimum of 3 previous projects completed within the past 5 years, that are similar in scope to this project.

For this evaluation subfactor:

a. Provide copies of project documents: Projects with public agencies, or private organizations will be considered.

i. For each project submitted, provide the scope of work and the tasks involved.

ii. References with contact information that can provide details about the success of the project.

iii. Photos of equipment used (sized to fit one 8.5 x 11 page)

iv. Photos of project before and after the project was completed (sized to fit one 8.5 x 11 page).

Subfactor 2 - Qualifications of Key Personnel: For this evaluation subfactor:

a. The offeror shall identify personnel (including subcontractors): Project manager, Operators of any craft and equipment and all other individuals proposed to be working on the project

b. The offeror shall provide resumes of all key personnel (including subcontractors): Project Manager, Conservator(s) and regularly present field personnel.

c. The offeror shall provide copies of current and applicable licenses, if necessary, in the work plan.

d. Outline the number of years of experience you have working on projects similar in scope to this requirement.

Subfactor 3 – Work Plan: For this component, the offeror shall provide a work plan. The work plan sections for the 12 sites shall include the following requirements specific for each site:

B. Evaluation Factor II - Past Performance: Offeror shall use a copy of the form entitled

"Past Performance”, that is included in the solicitation for each project. Provide a Past Performance form for a minimum of 3 projects completed within the past 5 years. Past performance on projects with other public agencies, private organizations or Federal agencies are acceptable examples of past performance. The past performance of the offeror and its proposed subcontractors on projects similar in scope and complexity will

RFP 140P5521R0017 Page 3 of 5 be evaluated in the areas of quality and timeliness. Offerors demonstrating a higher level of successful past performance will be more favorably rated.

C. Evaluation Factor III – Price: Offeror shall provide a cost proposal (Reference

Attachment 0002, Schedule of Values). Reasonableness will be determined by comparing the offeror’s price with the other offered prices received and by comparison to the independent government cost estimate (IGCE). Prices will be evaluated to determine whether any line items are unbalanced. Prices for each task on the Contract Price Schedule shall detail the staffing required, hours of effort, the quantities and types of equipment, equipment rates.

Complete Sections I and II of each form to provide applicable information for each contract.

1, Past Performance Questionnaires are to be submitted directly to the Government.

Offerors will be afforded the opportunity to respond to any instances of poor past performance.

2. Documentation shall demonstrate customer satisfaction relative to the following:

a. Offeror's conformance to the terms and conditions of the contract

b. Offeror's reasonableness and cooperativeness during performance

c. Offeror's timeliness to customer concerns and issues

d. Offeror’s capability to produce reports documenting progress, problems, and potential solutions and scheduling updates.

e. Offeror’s capability to work independently with little guidance

Note: The offeror may use the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 0003) or another form as long as it contains all information included in this form as well as a Subcontractor Reference form.

IV. EVALUATION FACTORS – A Color Evaluation system will be utilized as described below:

A. Evaluation Factor I – Technical.

Subfactor 1 – Previous Projects.

Rating Definition / Standard

Blue

Proposal demonstrates extensive related experience of projects similar in scope as contemplated herein. Projects clearly demonstrate that all characteristics of previous projects are comparable. Proposal shall completely address all components for this subfactor with no apparent weaknesses or deficiencies.

Green

Proposal demonstrates moderate related experience of projects similar in scope as contemplated herein. Contractor demonstrates that many of the characteristics of previous projects are comparable. Addresses most components for this subfactor. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths.

RFP 140P5521R0017 Page 4 of 5

Yellow

Proposal demonstrates minimal related experience of projects similar in scope as contemplated herein. Few characteristics of previous projects are comparable. Addresses only portions of components for this subfactor.

Weaknesses outweigh strengths.

Red

Proposal demonstrates a lack of related experience of projects similar in scope as contemplated herein. Characteristics of a comparable project are lacking or not evident. Does not address components for this subfactor.

Subfactor 2 – Key Personnel Qualifications.

Blue

All, key personnel identified have extensive experience in work similar in scope contemplated herein. Addresses components for this subfactor. No apparent weaknesses or deficiencies.

Key personnel demonstrate moderate experience with projects of similar scope. Addresses most components for this subfactor. Few key personnel have less than moderate experience.

Most key personnel demonstrate minimal related experience with projects of similar scope. Addresses only portions of the components for this subfactor. Weaknesses of staffing outweigh strengths.

All key personnel demonstrate a lack of related experience with projects of similar scope. Proposal does not address most or all of components for this subfactor. Staffing experience with work contemplated herein is lacking or not evident.

Subfactor 3 – Work Plan

Blue

Work Plan demonstrates clear and extensive understanding of the scope as contemplated herein. Work Plan is very detailed and demonstrates a lot of specificity. Addresses components for this subfactor. The Work Plan has no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Work Plan demonstrates moderate understanding of the scope as contemplated herein. Work Plan provides moderate detail and demonstrates general specificity. Addresses most components for this subfactor. Various sections of the Work Plan have weaknesses but are minor and are more than offset by strengths.

Work Plan demonstrates minimal understanding of the scope as contemplated herein. Work Plan is vague, little specificity. Does not address components of this subfactor well and some may be absent. Generally, weaknesses are equal to strengths. The sections of the Work Plan could be implemented but would require revision.

Work Plan demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scope as contemplated herein. Complete lack of detail. The work plan does not clearly address components of this subfactor. Weaknesses outweigh strengths.

RFP 140P5521R0017 Page 5 of 5

B. Evaluation Factor II – Price.

Price: The contractor shall provide a cost proposal. Reasonableness will be determined by comparing the offered prices received and comparison to the IGCE. Prices will be evaluated to determine whether any line items are unbalanced. Prices for each task on the Contract Price Schedule shall detail the staffing required, hours of effort, the quantities and types of equipment, equipment rates.

C. Evaluation Factor III –– Past Performance.

Proposal element indicates extensive customer satisfaction. Documentation and references are addressed completely and clearly. No apparent weaknesses or deficiencies.

Proposal element indicates moderate customer satisfaction.

Documentation and references are satisfactorily addressed. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths.

Neutral

Past performance information is not available as a result of the vendor or their key subcontractors not having relative past performance.

Proposal element indicates minimal or lack of customer satisfaction.

Documentation and references are addressed but are inadequate to assist in evaluation. Weaknesses outweigh strengths. Documentation and references are clearly unacceptable.

D. Over-All Technical Proposal Rating. SSET members in collaboration, working together, will assign an overall Technical Color Rating that considers all Factors and subfactors.

The Technical Proposal considering all factors and subfactors indicates extensive customer satisfaction. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Very low risk of poor performance.

The Technical Proposal considering all factors and subfactors indicates moderate customer satisfaction. Weaknesses, if any, are minor and are more than offset by strengths. Risk of poor performance is low.

The Technical Proposal considering all factors and subfactors indicates low customer satisfaction. Weaknesses equal to any strengths. Higher than normal risk of poor performance.

The Technical Proposal considering all factors and subfactors indicates minimal or lack of customer satisfaction. Weaknesses outweigh strengths.

Very high risk of poor performance.