Attachment 2 CB19016 Section M - R2022.11.10.pdf

1.0 OVERVIEW

The selection criteria to be used by the Contracting Officer for selection of firms to perform the Services specified are defined below. The criteria are divided into the categories listed in Section L titled “PHASE ONE PROPOSAL AND RELATED SELECTION CRITERIA.” The factors for award will be evaluated in two phases. The first phase consists of a Qualifications Overview Package. The three (3) most highly qualified Firms will be invited to submit a Phase Two Technical Package and make an oral presentation. The highest ranked Phase Two Firm will submit a price proposal to propose IDIQ labor rates and a Firm Fixed Price Proposal for Task Order 001.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD

2.1. PRICE WILL NOT BE EVALUATED DURING PHASE ONE.

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

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

2.4. 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 Firm to clarify their submission. If and when discussions are conducted with an Firm, they will be given the opportunity to review their proposal, if applicable. Firms whose Qualifications Overview Package is determined to be unacceptable (did not meet minimum criterion, incomplete, and/or with no opportunity to receive contract award) they may be eliminated from further consideration and will not participate in Phase Two.

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

Board will rate the submissions and provide three (3) recommendations to the Contracting Officer of which companies are most highly qualified and should be considered for Phase Two of the package. Those companies selected to participate in Phase Two will be notified by the AOC and an amendment will be posted to SAM.gov indicating the proposal due date for submission of Phase Two proposals.

2.6. Evaluations from Phase One will only be used to select the “short list” of firms invited to propose in Phase Two. Phase Two scores will stand alone in selection of the awardee, however commitments made by Firms in Phase One shall apply.

3.0 PHASE ONE (1) EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

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 One. Note - The SF 33 will only be issued to the highest qualified firm following Phase Two evaluations.

3.3. EVALUATION FACTOR 1: EVALUATION OF PRIME CONSULTANT

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

3.3.1. Description of firm and its capabilities:

3.3.1.1.Considered acceptable if description includes all items listed in Section L 4.2, and the firm has a minimum of fifteen (15) years of experience in federal government, state government and/or institutional work.

3.3.2. Project Experience:

3.3.2.1.Considered acceptable if project descriptions meet minimum characteristics as stated in Section L 4.2.3.

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

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

3.4. EVALUATION FACTOR 2: SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND

TECHINCAL COMPETENCE

3.4.1. Considered acceptable if material includes all items listed in Section L 4.3.

3.4.2. Team organizational chart:

3.4.2.1.Considered acceptable 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.

3.5. EVALUATION FACTOR 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 Section L 4.4 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 acceptable if all specified items in Section L 4.4 are included.

3.6. EVALUATION FACTOR 4: EVALUATION OF CAPACITY

3.6.1. Will be given additional consideration if company shows adequate capacity to perform workload and the ability to add excess capacity in a timely manner. The AOC expects the Program of Requirement (POR) to be completed within 14 months from the award of Task Order 001.

3.7. EVALUATION FACTOR 5: EVALUATION OF LOCATION EXPERIENCE

3.7.1. Location of Prime and Sub-consultants:

3.7.1.1.Considered acceptable if the submission includes demonstrated knowledge and expertise of Prime or Sub-consultants’ planning and design work in Washington, DC’s Monumental Core.

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

3.8. EVALUATION FACTOR 6: EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.8.1. Narrative on management approach:

3.8.1.1. Considered acceptable if all items specified in Section L 4.7 are included.

3.8.1.2.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.

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

4.0 PHASE TWO (2) EVALUATION

4.1. PHASE 2 PRESENTATIONS WILL BE EVALUATED UNDER THE SIX (6)

PHASE ONE EVALUATION FACTORS

4.2 EVALUATION FACTOR 7: PRICING

4.1.1. Considered acceptable if prices for all staff listed in Schedule B are included.

4.1.2. Considered acceptable if prices are within acceptable 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.

4.1.3. Considered acceptable if the price for Task Order 001 is evaluated as Fair and Reasonable based on a comparative analysis with Independent Government Cost Estimate.

RATING DEFINITIONS

The rating definitions below shall be used on all non-Price Factors with the exception of Past Performance.

Outstanding The quote 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 quote demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

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

Acceptable The quote provides a response which is capable of meeting 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 quote demonstrates a general understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

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

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

-- End of Section M --