Attachment- 5 Evaluation Factors.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Evaluation Factors and Methodology

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Factor Identification – This evaluation will evaluate the offerors by the proposals received in response to the USCG POLAR HUBS OVERHAUL FY25-FY29 Request for Proposals using the following factors:

• Factor 1 – Price Proposal

• Factor 2 – Technical Capability Proposal o Sub-factor A – Contractor Facility and Equipment o Sub-factor B – Capabilities of Performing Work

• Factor 3 – Past Performance Proposal

b. Factor 1 will be evaluated separate from the Technical Evaluation Team (TET) and applied in the determination of best value.

c. Factor 2 will be evaluated by the TET. TET will evaluate each Sub-factor. Sub-factor A and B are equally important.

d. Factor 3 will be evaluated by the TET.

e. Overall, non-Price factors, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the Price factor. The non-price factors are listed above in decreasing order of importance.

Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. However, as competing proposals approach equality in the non-price factors, the Price factor will become more important.

f. The Government will evaluate the quality and completeness of the offeror’s proposed Facility and Equipment to be used in performance of the eventual contract. As part of the Government’s evaluation, the Offeror shall make the production facilities to be used available for a site visit by the Government. The Contracting Officer may contact the Offerors to schedule the visit of up to ten (10) Government personnel, which must be accommodated within two (2) weeks’ notice.

Offerors shall provide the following in their proposal: A point of contact for scheduling the site visits including phone, fax, and e-mail address, and a security office point of contact including phone, fax, and e-mail address for forwarding Government personnel visit requests.

Factor 1 – Price Proposal (ATTACHMENT 1, Price Schedule) – No Page Limit. Submit via email to Robin Kloeppel at Robin.B.Kloeppel@uscg.mil and courtesy copy Kiya Plummer- Dantzler at Kiya.R.Plummer-Dantzler@uscg.mil .

(1) Complete ATTACHMENT 1 with prices for all CLINs in excel format.

mailto:Robin.B.Kloeppel@uscg.mil mailto:Kiya.R.Plummer-Dantzler@uscg.mil

(2) The Offeror must also submit the following detailed information to support the pricing offer if requested, in addition to completing the Price Schedule of the solicitation.

(3) Offerors may use their own format for the information required below but it must be easily read, comprehended, and identified by individual work item (eg. D-01, D-02). Breakdown for each work item:

a. Direct labor cost by labor hours and proposed hourly rate(s);

b. Materials; Subcontracts; Equipment; Other Direct Costs; and

c. Profit, if listed separately -- individually identifying any items which are $500 or greater.

(4) Provide a listing by subcontractor with the following information:

a. Identification of each proposed subcontractor (name, address, phone number) and his small business status.

b. A brief description of the service or supply, by work item, to be furnished and the proposed price for each.

c. An explanation of why and how the proposed subcontractor was selected including the extent of competition obtained.

Factor 2 – Technical Capability Proposal – 15 Pages maximum. Limit discussion to 3 pages and attachments to 12 pages. Submit via email to Robin Kloeppel at Robin.B.Kloeppel@uscg.mil and courtesy copy Kiya Plummer-Dantzler at Kiya.R.Plummer- Dantzler@uscg.mil

The offeror shall provide Technical capability information (including federal, state, and local government and/or private) for efforts similar to the scope of work in this solicitation.

Offerors shall use the work scope and schedule details provided in Price Schedule (ATTACHMENT 1) and Specification (ATTACHMENT 2) as the basis for the detailed information required in response to technical capabilities of the Contractor’s Facility and Equipment.

Submit information as detailed below for the following technical capabilities:

Sub-factor A – Contractor Facility and Equipment - The offeror shall specify its facility in which it will perform the work under the contract. Such facility shall be located on the west coast of the United States (WA, OR, CA). The offeror shall specify the equipment with which it will perform the work under the contract. The specification describes the dimension and weight of the hubs requiring maintenance.

(1) Provide a list of the buildings and their characteristics (e.g. sq ft) at the facility in which any of the hub maintenance work will be accomplished. Also list staging or storage areas that might be utilized in the maintenance process.

mailto:Robin.B.Kloeppel@uscg.mil

(2) Provide a plan view of the facility in which the hub maintenance work will be accomplished and the location of any associated equipment. (Provide as an attachment)

(3) Provide an itemized list of company-owned equipment (and associated capacities) that will be used in the movement and maintenance of the hubs while in the offeror’s facility. Provide photographs of all listed equipment in attachment pages.

a. Weight Handling (examples include but are not limited to):

i. Forklifts

ii. Mobile Cranes

iii. Gantry Systems

b. Machinery (examples include but are not limited to):

i. Lathe

ii. Drill Press

iii. Mill

iv. CNC systems

v. Heat Treatment Equipment

vi. Welding Equipment (robotically controlled or otherwise)

Sub-factor B – Capabilities of Performing Work - The offeror shall specify the workforce capabilities with which it will perform the work under the contract.

(1) Provide information on the depth of technical experience the offeror would draw upon to perform the work effort in the specification. Include the source of the required workforce, to include in-house expertise, sub-contractors, partners, etc. and the approximate percentage and/or tasks to be performed by each.

(2) Submit an experience resume for each intended subcontractor to include technical capability, experience with similar projects and facility capacity. Clearly define all work within the requirements that will be completed by a Third-Party and/or subcontractor.

(3) Provide information on the offeror’s ability to accurately diagnose and correct catastrophic or chronic machinery casualties, with specific reference to marine hydraulics systems.

(4) Provide information on the offeror’s quality assurance methods and how they would apply in the eventual contract. For example:

a. Measurement

b. Alignment

c. NDT

d. Laster Tracker

Factor 3 – Past Performance –Limit discussion to 3 pages. There is no page limit for attachments, but attachments are limited to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ). Submit via email to Robin Kloeppel at Robin.B.Kloeppel@uscg.mil and courtesy copy Kiya Plummer-Dantzler at Kiya.R.Plummer-Dantzler@uscg.mil

(1) CPARS: The government will evaluate the quality and extent of Offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Provide a list of no more than four, of the most relevant contracts performed as the prime contractor for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three years of the solicitation closing date.

For submitted Government projects that have a completed CPARS evaluation available, the Offeror shall submit the report with their proposal. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project.

Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

(2) PPQ: For submitted private sector projects the Offeror shall request their client fill out and submit the PPQ utilizing the format specified in Appendix C. Offerors will request your clients to complete the questionnaire and submit it via email directly to Robin Kloeppel at Robin.B.Kloeppel@uscg.mil and courtesy copy Kiya Plummer-Dantzler at Kiya.R.Plummer- Dantzler@uscg.mil referencing the solicitation number and your company name in the subject line.

All PPQs are to be received by the closing date of the solicitation. Any questionnaires received after the closing date of the solicitation will not be considered.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. Attention is directed to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1, which provides that a contract will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, represents the Best Value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with the factors identified herein.

“Best Value” represents those proposals which are most advantageous to the Government, Price and no-price factors considered. Offerors are advised that the Government may award to other than an Offeror with the lowest proposed price. Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interest (see paragraph (2) of FAR 52.215-1(f)).

The Government intends to make award on the basis of initial offers without discussions with Offerors (other than communications conducted for purposes of minor clarifications). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the mailto:Robin.B.Kloeppel@uscg.mil mailto:Kiya.R.Plummer-Dantzler@uscg.mil mailto:Robin.B.Kloeppel@uscg.mil

Contracting Officer to be necessary (see paragraph (4) of FAR 52.215-1(f)). Therefore, Offerors are advised to offer their most favorable proposal, from a price and technical standpoint, in their initial offer.

If an award is not made on the basis of initial proposals, the Contracting Officer will make the determination as to which proposals are in the competitive range. The Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals. However, the number of proposals within the competitive range may also be reduced if the Contracting Officer determines the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included within the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted (see paragraph (4) of FAR 52.215-1(f)).

The Government reserves the right to gather, use and evaluate information on past performance in addition to that submitted in the proposal. The Government may contact references submitted by Offerors and may use information in Government files, or present at other Government offices, to verify information concerning the Offeror’s prior schedule adherence, cost performance, quality, overall performance, and other information.

Statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal may be subject to verification by Government Agencies or through an onsite survey by USCG evaluators.

An Offeror’s proposal for non-price factors may be rated lower if, in the judgment of the Government, the price proposal does not accurately reflect the Offeror’s proposed effort in meeting the requirements, thereby indicating that the Offeror does not fully understand the scope of the requirements. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price, shall be explained in the proposal.

2.1 Price Analysis

The total evaluated price of the offeror will be determined by totaling the proposed prices of all the Definite Items plus the composite labor hour extended total. While the composite labor hour extended total is included in the total evaluated price, it is for evaluation purposes, and therefore may or may not ultimately be awarded during contract performance.

(1) DEFINITE ITEMS: These are the items, which, if there is an award at all, will be awarded.

The bid shall be evaluated to include the price for each definite item.

(2) COMPOSITE LABOR HOUR RATE: The offer shall be evaluated to include the offer price for the Composite Labor Hour Rate multiplied by the estimated quantity of hours.

Offeror’s price shall represent the best price in response to the request for proposal. The price shall be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness. Award may be made without any type of discussions or negotiations. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposal for completeness, materially balanced pricing and reasonableness. An Offeror’s price proposal may be deemed non-compliant if, in the judgment of the Government, the price proposal is incomplete, erred, or does not accurately reflect the Offeror’s proposed effort in meeting the requirements, thereby indicating that the Offeror does not understand the scope of the technical requirements.

Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost or price shall be explained in the proposal.

2.2 Technical Capability Analysis

Adjectival ratings will be assigned for the non-price factors of Technical Capability (Factor 2) as described in the table below. Adjectival ratings for Technical Capability are reflective of how well the proposal meets or exceeds the solicitation requirements. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide information and evidence that clearly demonstrates its ability to satisfactorily respond to the solicitation requirements.

2.2.1 Technical Subfactors

Contractor Facility & Equipment. The Government will evaluate the quality and completeness of the offeror’s proposed Facility and Equipment to be used in performance of the eventual contract. As part of the Government’s evaluation, the Offeror shall make the production facilities to be used available for a site visit by the Government. The Contracting Officer may contact the Offerors to schedule the visit of up to ten (10) Government personnel, which must be accommodated within two (2) weeks’ notice. Offerors shall provide the following in their proposal: A point of contact for scheduling the site visits including phone, fax, and e-mail address, and a security office point of contact including phone, fax, and e-mail address for forwarding Government personnel visit requests.

Capabilities of Performing Work. The Government will evaluate the depth of technical experience within their proposed workforce as applicable to the project management, engineering, and quality assurance required in the contract. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s design maturity and engineering approach including the extent to which the Offeror has a sound basis to meet or exceed the requirements of this RFP.

A rating shall be assigned to each Sub-Factor of Technical Capability as defined under the table below:

Technical Capability Analysis Rating System

RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2.3 Past Performance Analysis

The non-price factor of Past Performance (Factor 3) will be rated using the following procedure:

1) A relevancy rating will be assigned to each past performance project per the chart below.

Only projects of similar scope and complexity to this requirement, that include the repair and overhaul of marine equipment, will be further evaluated under this factor.

Relevant Past Performance Project meets the above relevancy criteria.

Not Relevant Past Performance Project does not meet the above relevancy criteria

2) Further evalation of relevant past performance will take into account the guidelines outlined at FAR 15.305(a)(2) Past Performance Evaluation. The Contractor’s complete relevant past performance will be evaluated according to the following factors:

Management, Quality and Schedule.

Past Performance Analysis Rating System

RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Past performance exceeded the requirements with significant benefit to the government. The offeror demonstrated the ability to meet technical challenges, scope growth or schedule variations, and delivered high quality products. No deficiencies or significant weaknesses were noted.

Good Past performance exceeded the requirements. Weaknesses were noted that had no significant impact on contract delivery. Products or services received by the Government were delivered on-time and of high quality.

Acceptable Past performance met the requirements. Minor weaknesses were found including one that caused moderate risk to delivery (Schedule disruption, poor management, poor quality).

Marginal Past Performance indicates a high risk to successful delivery of this requirement.

Several deficiencies and/or weakness were observed that were only cured through government intervention.

Unacceptable Past Performance indicates that that contractor cannot meet this requirement.

Deficiencies and weaknesses were identified that were not cured, or the government did not receive a satisfactory product. No evidence that these issues have been resolved.

Neutral The offeror does not have relevant past performance history.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have neutral past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, "neutral" shall be considered "acceptable."

Past performance will be evaluated to assist in determining the Offeror’s performance risk for this solicitation. In assessing the relevance of the data, the Government will give consideration to past performance on contracts performed or currently being performed over the last three (3) years that required the same or similar work in both type and complexity as the work required by this solicitation including marine equipment maintenance and repair services. Completed contracts and completed deliveries may be deemed more relevant than open contracts without completed deliveries. The currency and relevance of the information and general trends in contract performance will be considered. In determining relevancy of an Offeror’s past performance, the order of relevancy is marine equipment maintenance and repair services, followed by maintenance and repair services of other industrial equipment of similar size and complexity. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government will make the determination as to the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance.

The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including CPARS ratings; other existing past performance information contained in other Government files and sources; and sources outside the Government, regardless of whether they have been provided by the Offeror as references. For example, the Government may consider information based on its own experience with the Offeror and/or may contact the parties for whom the Offeror performed contracts and consider their responses when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal. The Government also reserves the right to verify statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal. The Government will determine which past performance data is most relevant. Past performance information obtained independently of the Offeror’s proposal may be more relevant than past performance information submitted by the Offeror. The Offeror is reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance source data, rests with the Offeror itself. General trends in a contractor’s performance will also be considered.