Attachment II - Evaluation Factors.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE

“COMMISIONING FOR RENOVATE 3RD FLOOR AMB CARE FOR SPECIALTY CARE CLINIC”

541-23-101 11-07-2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE

1.0 SET ASIDE FACTOR

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.0 SCORE KEY

4.0 CONCENSUS EVALUATION

1.0 SET ASIDE FACTOR

1.1 This procurement is a Total Set-Aside for Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB) AE firms. The primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code is 541330, Engineering Services, are also required as this is a multi-disciplinary AE requirement and therefore experience and qualifications for the AE services are being evaluated as part of this solicitation. Offerors that are not an SDVOSB AE firm will be ineligible for consideration.

Verification of SDVOSB status will be done via confirming current registration in the Center for Veterans Enterprise – Vendor Information Pages database (https://www.vip/vetbiz.va.gov/).

Firms submitting a qualification package must have a current registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) (https://sam/gov).

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Award shall be made to the offeror whose quote offers the best value to the government, considering technical capability, past performance and geographic location. The government will evaluate information based on the comparative evaluation procedures authorized in FAR Part 36.602-1, Selection Criteria, using the following evaluation factors:

1) Technical Capability (55% weighting)

2) Past Performance (40% weighting)

3) Geographic Location (5% weighting)

1) Technical Capability (55% weighting) – in providing commissioning services for the renovation project for Specialty Care space located on the Third Floor of the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center. Work shall include programming, Design Submissions, Site Investigation/ Field Verification, Asbestos Testing, Construction Documents, Technical Specifications, Cost Estimates, Reports, System Integrator Services and Construction Administration Services.

Include Government and private sector experience on projects similar in size, scope and complexity and experience with project phasing to maintain hospital operations during construction. The evaluation will consider the management approach, coordination of disciplines and subcontractors, quality control procedures, prior experience of the prime firm and any key subcontractors working together on relevant projects and familiarity with VA Design Guides/ Manuals, Master Specifications and other applicable standards.

Offeror shall provide a Summary Page of its recent and relevant specialized experience and technical competence which is similar in size, scope and magnitude to this requirement.

https://www.vip/vetbiz.va.gov/ https://sam/gov

“Relevant” is defined as those task requirements identified in the RFP’s Scope of Work.

“Recent” is defined as services provided within the past five (5) years.

Offeror shall provide a minimum of 3 projects but no more than five (5). Each project shall include the following:

• Project title, location and detailed narrative describing the scope of services provided including the type of work performed by the offeror and its role in the project i.e., Prime Contractor, Teaming Partner or Subcontractor

• Project Owner, owner’s point of contact including telephone number and email addresses

• Services & Deliverables provided under the contract/ task order

• Period of Performance, including start and completion dates

• Total dollar value of the project

2) Past Performance (40% weighting) – on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules. CPARS data or PPQs (if no CPARS data is available) must be provided for projects submitted under Factor 1 (Specialized Experience). Government Past Performance Information Systems may be accessed. Evaluating past performance and experience may include information provided by the firm, recommendation letters, customer inquiries, Government databases, and publicly available sources. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified.

The following information is required for all projects: contract/ task order number, project title, prime firm, start date, and completion date. Evaluations may also include additional performance related from the firm, customer inquiries, Government databases, publicly available sources, and additional projects in CPARS.

The Government reserves the right to also evaluate past performance on previously awarded federal task orders and any other information available.

Note: We recommend you contact every reference listed and let them know we may contact them for information. Their timely replies would be appreciated.

3) Geographic Location (5% weighting) - It is important that the offerors be responsive in a timely manner to being onsite to support this project. Offerors shall provide the travel time that the prime contractor and each of their subconsultants that need to be onsite are away from the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center by car and air (if applicable). The SSEB will evaluate the lowest aggregate time from each offeror divided by the total number of prime/ subcontractors to arrive at an average travel time for that offeror. The SSEB will then rank the average travel time from each offer from the lowest to highest (the lower the time, the better the ranking).

3.0 SCORE KEY

3.1 Assessment Rating Definitions

Table 1: Assessment Rating Definitions Pts Assessment Definition 1 Excellent A comprehensive and thorough presentation of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths.

Offeror’s response is clearly superior. The response is innovative and exceeds requirements. No deficiency or significant weaknesses exists.

2 Very Good Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria;

has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist.

3 Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria;

has an average probability of success with no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected.

4 Marginal Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success;

major weaknesses and/ or significant number of deficiencies exist.

5 Poor Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; very low probability of success.

3.2 Adjectival Descriptions Definitions

• Strength: An area in the SF 330 which there is a high level of confidence or meeting the requirements and to some extent clearly exceeds what is necessary to meet the requirement.

• Weakness: Is a flaw in the SF 330 that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Deficiency: Is a failure of a SF 330 to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a SF330 that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to a marginal or poor level.

4.0 CONCENSUS EVALUATION

4.1 The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will provide a Consensus Evaluation to the

Contracting Officer that that will state the reasons why the best rated proposal was found to be superior to the others. The Consensus Evaluation paragraph should be two or three sentences, using information provided above that should clearly explain the selection. The Contracting Officer will receive only one Consensus Evaluation from the SSEB Team and the raw worksheets from SSEB members. The SSEB Chair has the responsibility for combining all of the comments into a coherent explanation of the SSEB’s selection.

The Consensus Evaluation will include the following:

a) Evaluation factors that were significant to the decision

b) Limitations of non-selected firms that were significant