ATTACHMENT 6 - Evaluation Factors 13Mar2020.pdf

1.0 M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

1.1 Evaluation Factors.

In evaluating proposals, the Government will select the proposal that is the Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) offer to the Government with an acceptable past performance rating. The Government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability and past performance, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors. To arrive at an award decision, each offer will be assessed in accordance with the following evaluation factors for the contract:

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Technical Factor 3: Past Performance

Offerors are advised that their initial submission should be their best effort. Only technically acceptable proposals having “acceptable” past performance, either initially or as a result of discussions, are eligible for award. If award is made without discussions, proposal revisions will not be permitted. The Government will first rank all proposals by price, from lowest to highest total evaluated price (TEP). Then the government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability and past performance on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis starting with the three (3) lowest priced proposals. For the technical proposal to be rated as “Acceptable”, the technical factors and sub-factors must be rated acceptable. If any technical sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable,” the overall proposal will be rated as “Unacceptable.” For the past performance proposal to be rated as “Acceptable”, the proposal must provide past performance information that is recent and relevant for same or similar projects that concluded no more than five (5) years from the original solicitation release date be rated acceptable.

1.2 Price Evaluation: The evaluated price shall be the total price proposed by the offeror in Section B as supplemented by the Cost Estimation Breakdown. Proposals will then be ranked from lowest to highest based on evaluated price. The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition for this acquisition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1); therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). If at any time however, during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

1.3 Price Factor: Prices will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will be calculated by multiplying the quantities for CLIN 0001 by the CLIN’s unit price to determine the total amount for CLIN0001. The same calculation process will be used for any subsequent CLINs.

The total amount for each CLIN will then be summed to equal the TEP. The TEP will be established on all proposals which will then be ranked from lowest to highest price.

The Government will conduct a Price Analysis on the lowest priced technically acceptable offer having acceptable past performance rating using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, to determine if it is reasonable and balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub line items appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.4 Technical Evaluation: If the Government receives three (3) or more initial proposals the Government will only select the three (3) lowest priced proposals and then evaluate them for Technical Acceptability. The Government reserves the right to evaluate additional proposals for technical acceptability if in the Government’s best interest. If additional proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability they will be selected in the order of total evaluated price. Technical evaluations will continue until the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal is identified. The Government, at its discretion, may continue technical evaluations until the Contracting Officer determines that a sufficient number of technically acceptable proposals have been identified to permit determination of price fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition.

1.5 Technical Factor: For the purposes of technical evaluation, the term “offeror” will include any proposed teaming arrangements. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each factor. For the technical proposal to be rated as “Acceptable”, the technical factor and sub factors must be rated acceptable. If any technical factor or sub factor is rated “Unacceptable” the overall proposal will be rated as “Unacceptable”. 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 Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Technical Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The technical proposal will be evaluated for the following technical factors and sub factors:

Sub-Factor 1: Proposed Schedule

Description: Provide a proposed schedule that captures the major elements of work described in the statement of work, deliverables, and specifications to complete the project at minimum within the allotted period of performance (or sooner) and any other scheduled timelines for deliverables. The offeror must provide a schedule that illustrates and displays project completion of all phases of design; major elements of work and timelines for each element of work using a graphical or tabular representation (e.g. MS Project, AF IMT 3064, or Gantt chart). The project schedule shall provide the following:

a) Definable features of work (DFOW) per division to a sufficient level to clearly indicate all aspects of the project including project setup, management, design, site work, utilities, construction, equipment installation.

b) Identifies any required/proposed utility outages.

c) Identifies critical path work elements (including any long-lead time materials) in the schedule.

d) Identifies key deliverables/milestones required to fulfill the SOW.

The project schedule and narrative shall be redacted to remove all company names, logos, and personnel names.

The standard has been met when: The offeror demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient project schedule that captures all SOW requirements, execution timelines and addresses the above items. The offeror must provide a schedule that illustrates and displays project completion of all phases of design; major elements of work, timelines and percentages (relative to the overall project) for each element of work using a graphical or tabular representation (e.g. MS Project, AF IMT 3064, or Gantt chart).

The project schedule shall be redacted to remove all company names, logos, and personnel names.

Sub-Factor 2: Project Narrative.

Description: The project narrative shall provide additional details to milestones and clarification to the work or deliverables included in each of the major elements of work in the proposed schedule; definable features of work (DFOW) per division; critical path work elements and milestones in the schedule; and type(s), size, and quantity of equipment proposed. The project schedule and narrative shall be redacted to remove all company names, logos, and personnel names. The following areas shall be addressed in the technical proposal Narrative.

a) Definable features of work (DFOW) per division to a sufficient level to clearly indicate all aspects of the project including project setup, management, design, site work, utilities, construction, equipment installation.

b) Identifies proposed utility outages.

c) Identifies critical path work elements (including any long-lead time materials) in the schedule.

d) Identifies key deliverables/milestones required to fulfill the SOW.

The project narrative shall provide additional details to milestones and clarification to the work or deliverables included in each of the major elements of work in the proposed schedule.

The narrative shall address the approach to design and construction requirements; safety; the DFOW, critical path work elements, and key deliverables/milestones in the schedule; and describe (but not limited to) with respect to the:

a) Number and types of facilities.

b) Number and types of utilities. This section should indicate sizes and quantities of utilities/equipment proposed.

c) The risk of any unscheduled HVAC downtime and the need for 24/7 redundancy.

d) Required application of temporary HVAC from temporary location to rooms requiring it.

e) The requirement for generator back-up for the temporary HVAC and an appropriate solution.

f) Itemization of manpower by division and trade required to execute the scope of this contract.

The standard has been met when: The offeror demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient project narrative that captures all SOW requirements, execution timelines and addresses the above items. The narrative shall be redacted to remove all company names, logos, and personnel names.

Sub-Factor 3: Quality Control Plan

Description: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s submitted quality control plan.

Specifically, the adequacy of the offeror’s key quality control staff and approach to the management of the overall quality of the contract, and the adequacy of the offeror’s approach to quality control for subcontractors. The plan should be specific to this project and explain the offeror’s organization structure and relationship to production. This document will be incorporated by reference in the resulting contract.

The standard has been met when: The offeror provides a plan that clearly and logically addresses the offeror’s key quality control staff and approach to the management of the overall quality; the adequacy of the offeror’s approach to quality control for subcontractors; and meets at minimum the requirements specified below:

a) Clearly demonstrates an effective and efficient quality management structure and processes that are integrated into the overall quality control plan and allows oversight of the contract requirements from the home office of the field craftsperson.

b) Clearly demonstrates ability to maintain an inspection system that is integrated into the overall quality management approach that meets the requirements expressed in the SOW and contract.

Sub-factor 4: Design-Build HVAC Project Experience

Description: The government will evaluate each offeror’s experience on the basis of its breadth, its depth, and its relevance to the work that will be required under the prospective contract, based on the information provided in the Construction & Design Experience Project Data Sheets (Attachment 8) submitted in the proposal. The offeror may substitute commercial projects of similar complexity in lieu of DoD military installation projects. The offeror shall clearly address in detail, their organization’s HVAC experience, including any experience working in a controlled area (i.e...secured location/monitored access), and/or working around computer network servers.

If other other than the offeror itself will perform the HVAC aspects of the work, the Government may evaluate projects that demonstrate the offeror’s HVAC subcontractor experience if the prime contractor provides an executed teaming agreement specific for this project.

Recent & Relevant Projects. A project is defined as a complete design-build effort performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and IDIQ type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather, offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project. For purpose of this factor evaluation, relevancy of projects is defined as projects completed within the last five (5) years (from the date of issuance on this solicitation) of similar scope and complexity of those expected to be awarded on this solicitation, with dollar values ranging exceeding $750K. In lieu of a complete project, the offeror may submit projects that are ongoing as long as (a) the project is at least 80% complete by this solicitation’s issuance date, and (b) the contractor can validate completion with a government approved progress report.

The standard has been met when: The offeror provides at least three (3) but no more than five (5) recent and relevant design-build for HVAC on a Department of Defense (DoD) military installation using the Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment 6). The offeror is required to explain what aspects of the projects presented are deemed equivalent to this HVAC requirement, including any details about their organization’s experience working in a controlled area (i.e...secured location/monitored access), and/or working around computer network servers. Failure to explain how equivalency is met may render the project as irrelevant to meet the experience requirement. Specific required experience attributes must be supported by narrative; inferences will not be made by the Agency.

1.6 Factor 3: Past Performance

1.7 Evaluation. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its subcontractors’ listed as a teaming partner) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming partner), other than the offeror itself, that will perform critical aspects.

The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or similar systems. The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, commercial sources, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

Past Performance Reports.

Offeror’s must provide past performance information to establish Recency and Relevancy on all Federal contracts before State, local Government or private contracts. Offeror’s shall provide adequate past performance information for completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local Government and private) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the Specifications.

The offeror shall provide no more than three (3) recent and relevant past performance reports. The offeror shall complete Past Performance Information Form (Attachment 7) and provide the past performance information to establish Recency and Relevancy of the reference. Only references for recent and relevant past efforts/contracts will be acceptable for evaluation.

Recency. Recency is defined as active or completed project completed within the past five

(5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. In lieu of completed projects within the five years, ongoing projects may be used as long as (a) they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation and (b) the contractor provides proof of percent completion with a Government approved progress report. For commercial contracts, an equivalent customer validation of progress completion report may be used in lieu of a Government approved progress report.

Relevancy. Relevant is defined as “design-build projects of similar scope and complexity” to those described in the specifications with (a) costs exceeding $750k (b) involves projects for renovation, alteration and repair, and new construction work elements deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with Section M. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the Solicitation/specification).

Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

Past Performance Evaluation Factor Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant/recent 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 shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

1.8 Discussions: If discussions are to be conducted, the Government will establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The competitive range will consist of the most highly rated offerors based on evaluation of all offers against all factors. The Government reserves the right to further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Prior to the establishment of the competitive range, and after the decision to conduct discussions has been made, the Government may enter into limited communications with offerors whose inclusion or exclusion from the competitive range is uncertain. These communications are limited in accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(1).

The Government will only enter discussions with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) by a common cutoff date and time as established by the contracting officer. If, after discussions have begun the Government determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. This may occur at any time even if all material issues have not been discussed or if the offeror has not yet been afforded the opportunity to submit a proposal revision. Written notice of exclusion from the competitive range will be provided to unsuccessful offerors.