B2_DRAFT_11_RFP_Section_M_(Evaluation_Factors).pdf

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

RFP # 368624

SLAC Job Order Contract

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

A. Basis for Contract Award

This is a tradeoff best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Department of Energy Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DEARS), and SLAC Terms and Conditions. SLAC will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of all the technical factors and subfactors to include Price.

The subcontract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to SLAC.

SLAC seeks to award to the offeror who gives SLAC the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While SLAC’s source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

SLAC intends to award one subcontract under this RFP. SLAC reserves the right and has sole discretion to reject all offers.

C. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

DRAFT

SLAC may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in cost when compared to SLAC’s estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

D. Correction Potential of Proposals

SLAC will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of SLAC. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet SLAC’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated.

2. EVALUATION

A. Because this action requires a high degree of technical, personnel and managerial capability, capacity, experience, and management excellence, this selection process will involve two steps.

Step 1 Submitted Statement of Qualifications will be evaluated in Step 1 by a formal source selection board having experience in construction, construction safety, and finance. During Step 1, the selection board will select the three (3) most highly qualified offerors to proceed to Step 2. Offerors will be notified in writing and those that did not qualify will also be notified of such.

No debriefing will be available or offered until after the award.

Step 2 If an offeror is selected for Step 2, submittal of a Technical Proposal (Volume One) and a submittal of a Pricing Proposal (Volume Two) will be required. In addition to the Technical and Pricing Proposals, interviews will be held in accordance with Factor 6 in Step 2 in Section L.

B. Evaluation Factors and Sub factors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to SLAC based upon the evaluation factors and subfactors as described in Section M.

STEP 1: EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS

Factor 1 – Statement of Qualifications Subfactor 1.1 Qualification information received (per instruction in Section L of this RFP) will be evaluated to confirm Offeror has current and valid Licenses for all disciplines required to design and construct projects under this contract vehicle.

Subfactor 1.2 Offeror’s written statement will be reviewed to ensure:

o That Offeror’s Contractor’s License has not been revoked in the last 5 years.

o That the Offeror has not been debarred from working on Government contracts/subcontracts at any time during the last five years.

o That neither the Offeror’s firm, nor any of its owners or officers have been convicted of a crime involving the awarding of the contract of a government (U.S. Federal, State, and City) construction project, or the bidding or performance of a government contract.

o Confirmation that Offeror has had an established local presence within 100 miles of SLAC for at least three (3) years o That the Offeror has previous experience working on federally funded construction projects.

Factor 2 – Safety Subfactor 2.1 EMR will be reviewed to verify it is less than 1.0. If greater than

1.0, OSHA 300 logs will be reviewed for fatalities and/or OSHA violations. Futher information will be required for EMRs greater than 1.0.

Subfactor 2.2 Narrative on safety performance, safety program and culture will be reviewed for thoroughness.

Subfactor 2.3 Information provided by Offeror will be validated and checked for non-compliance and/or criminal or civil enforcement activity.

Subfactor 2.4 Offeror will be required to submit and obtain SLAC’s approval for Offeror’s completed Subcontractor Construction Safety Qualification Form (SQF).

Factor 3 - Past Performance For the past performance questionnaires completed by previous clients (Section L Attachment A Past Performance Questionnaire), Offerors will be evaluated on the client’s feedback on project performance as identified in the questionnaire, and whether the design-build projects are recent and relevant to the proposed effort. A minimum of 3 Past Performance Questionnaires are required to be received by SLAC for evaluation.

For the other past performance information (3-5 projects) and teaming information that the Offeror submits within the qualifications submittal, the past performance evaluation will be based on recency, relevancy, performance (cost, schedule, safety, quality), and the narrative describing how the Offeror will apply lessons learned and best practices from these projects to successfully deliver projects at SLAC.

Factor 4 – Corporate Experience Subfactor 4.1 Documented experience with managing JOC projects (or other IDIQ/task order-based projects) of a comparable size and working as a team with design consultants will be assessed.

Subfactor 4.2 The collaborative approach and ability will be assessed with emphasis on ability to work with owner, architect and engineering firm and subcontractors to control scope, schedule and budget.

Subfactor 4.3 Past experience with a wide variety of subcontractors that would enable execution on multiple simultaneous projects including all disciplines covered under the Construction Task Catalog (CTC) will be evaluated.

Factor 5 – Financial Subfactor 5.1 Offeror’s largest, successfully completed project will be evaluated.

Subfactor 5.2 Bonding capability for this project, maximum bonding capability for a single project and total bonding capability will be evaluated.

Subfactor 5.3 Line of credit will be evaluated for available financial capacity.

Subfactor 5.4 Dun and Bradstreet report will be reviewed to verify a SER score of 6 or lower.

Financial statements are not required with a SER score of 6 or below. For Bidders with a Dun and Bradstreet SER score greater than 6, or if they do not participate in Dun and Bradstreet, the bidder will need to provide three most current years of audited Financial Statements which will be reviewed for risk.

STEP 2: EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (Volume I)

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Technical proposals will be evaluated against the following Factors and Subfactors, which are listed in the order of importance:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Subfactor 1.1 Project Approach The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated on how the activities will be planned from start to finish. The Offeror’s technical approach should clearly demonstrate a technical understanding of the seed project scope and the planning required to successfully complete the project and how the task will be completed with minimal impact to the existing and surrounding facilities.

Subfactor 1.2 Environmental How well did the Offeror’s describe their environmental regulatory compliance history over the last 3 years. If there were violations from non-compliance, how well did the supporting documentation mitigate those violations.

Subfactor 1.3 Assumptions How well does the Offeror’s clearly articulate the assumptions and clarifications made in preparation of the Proposal. Do assumptions and clarifications affect the Offeror’s proposal in terms of meeting all the technical requirements in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW), specifications, and drawings.

Factor 2 – Safety The Offeror will be evaluated on how well the identified ES&H program meets the requirements outlined in SLAC terms and conditions, Article 17, “Environmental, Safety, and Health Protection – Codes and Standards.” The narrative will be evaluated for thoroughness regarding how SLAC’s safety requirements are incorporated into the overall plan, and how the Subcontractor will ensure that all levels of sub-tier Sub-subcontractors are engaged in a cohesive, effective safety culture and program.

Factor 3 – Key Personnel Experience Resumes will be evaluated for individual and team experience (with each other) on comparable projects (size, scope, and complexity) within the past 10 years.

Section H of the Subcontract will be evaluated that it includes, at a minimum, the following Key

Personnel: Project Manager, General Superintendent, Quality Control Manager and Site Safety Officer

Factor 4 – Project Management Subfactor 4.1 Assessment of the narrative and documentation on the current quality assurance program and methodology.

Subfactor 4.2 The staffing and management approach related to executing multiple concurrent projects will be analyzed.

Subfactor 4.3 Evaluation of the capacity and capability of the offeror, including any consultants, their representatives, qualifications and locations, to perform the work, including any specialized services.

Subfactor 4.4 Assessment of the Offeror’s ability to assign qualified personnel.

Factor 5 – Schedule The Offeror will be evaluated on how well their submitted schedule meets project schedule as indicated in the Statement of Work, and that the submitted schedule contains a detailed breakdown including the below items. An Offeror can also be rated as Exceeds Requirements in this factor if they propose a schedule that is less than the maximum Period of Performance identified in the Statement of Work. The schedule narrative will be evaluated on the effectiveness of the described, integrated approach to manage, update, and report the schedule according to the requirements in Division 1, and how well the approach addresses both critical path methodology and collaborative planning and coordination.

Contract Award Task Order Award Post-award Kick-off and Partnering Meetings Design Commencement Design Completion SLAC Building Inspection Office (BIO) review and approval of all D-B Subcontractor’s work packages for permitting “0” day Notice to Proceed (NTP) Schedule for the submittal of safety related documents required for NTP (list all safety related documents) Pre-mobilization activities

Mobilization Staging of equipment and materials Construction by discipline, system, and activity Inspection and testing Cleanup and demobilization For all activities, the proposed start and end dates, and any interdependencies shall be included SLAC quality inspections

Factor 6 – Interview and Presentation The interview and presentation will be evaluated on:

a. Preparedness, organization, collaboration, attendance, dialog, and discussion

b. Project management and project organization

c. Seed project approach, design methodology, and technical content

Clarifications during the technical presentation will be considered by the Source Selection Board under the applicable technical evaluation factors. Interviews will not discuss pricing.

STEP 2: EVALUATION OF PRICE PROPOSAL (Volume II)

BUSINESS EVALUATION

Clearly stamp all company financial documents as “Business Sensitive” or equivalent language, if applicable, on any included documents.

Price RFP Section A (Subcontract Form) will be reviewed for completeness;

acknowledgement of issued addendums per Solicitation Section A(9).

RFP Section B (Supplier or Service Prices), including Options, will be reviewed for completeness and reasonableness.

Proposed Bid Sheet will be reviewed for completeness (Attachment B SLAC JOC

Bid Sheet).

Proposed price and schedule will be evaluated against SLAC’s independent estimate.

Schedule of values will be reviewed for completeness and reasonableness.

Contract Documentation RFP Sections A (Subcontract Form) completed and signed RFP Section B (Supplies or Services and Prices) completed as indicated RFP Section C (Statement of Work, Drawings and Technical Specifications) RFP Section F (Deliveries or Performance) RFP Section G (Terms and Conditions)

RFP Section H (Special Terms and Conditions) completed with Key Personnel Submitted Section K and SAM.GOV, “Representations & Certifications” shall be evaluated for completeness.

Submitted IIPP form (Section J, Attachment 03) shall be evaluated for completeness.

Submitted Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Section J, Attachment 07) shall be evaluated for completeness.

Acknowledgment of all amendments per Section 9 of the Amendment clause.

Provide your company’s labor rate sheet, through the end of the performance period.

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Step 1 SLAC will evaluate each qualification proposal to include past performance and assign a confidence rating as defined below. The three (3) most highly qualified proposals will be invited to submit technical and price proposals as described in section L of this solicitation.

Factor 1- Statement of Qualification Evaluation: The Statement of Qualification subfactors are pass/fail criterion.

Factor 2- Safety Evaluation: Safety subfactors are pass/fail criterion.

Factor 3- Past Performance Evaluation: Using Past Performance questionnaires and company provided information, the Procurement Specialist shall seek relevant performance information on all Offerors based on the past and present efforts of the Offeror and data independently obtained from other sources.

Recent performance is defined as projects completed within the last 5 years. Completed projects are preferred over ongoing projects but ongoing projects may be submitted if the project is at least 80% complete.

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving the factors (listed below) that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow SLAC to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offerors demonstrated present and past performance. The Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Relevancy Factors

JOC (or other IDIQ/task order-based contract vehicle) Construction Experience Design Ability and Excellence Capability and Capacity Cost Performance, including cost overruns Quality of the work

Schedule Performance, including schedule overruns Applicability to scientific, laboratory, and general utility infrastructure projects

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of High Confidence, Significant Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Little Confidence, or No Confidence.

Confidence Assessment Ratings

High Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Significant Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No relevant past performance record is available

Little Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offerors existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

No Confidence

Based on the offerors performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 4- Corporate Experience: Experience subfactors will be evaluated utilizing a Confidence Assessment Rating. The assessment process will result in an overall corporate experience confidence assessment of High Confidence, Significant Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Little Confidence, or No Confidence.

Confidence Assessment Ratings

High Confidence

Based on the offeror’s corporate experience record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will

Significant Confidence little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s corporate experience record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No relevant corporate experience record is available

Little Confidence substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offerors existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

No Confidence extreme doubt exists that the offeror will

Factor 5- Financial Evaluation: Financial subfactors are Meets or Does Not Meet criterion.

Step 2

Although price is important, it will not be used for the sole basis for award. A qualitative assessment based on the Evaluation Factors will be evaluated. The technical differences shall be noted between the proposal offers, and adequately documented to determine any price/technical tradeoff to support the final award. After all Step 2 Technical Proposals are ranked, Step 2 Price Proposals will be shared with the Project Team. SLAC intends to award without discussions; however, SLAC reserves the right to hold discussions if it is deemed in its best interest.

The focus of the proposal evaluation and selection process will be to identify the individual proposal strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies. The evaluation will analyze each Offeror’s resources that are available to perform under the contract, and how those resources will be utilized during contract performance. This includes the Offeror’s analysis of their resources for this project and their proven ability through demonstrated past performance to satisfy all of the requirements. All technical factors will be weighted approximately equal.

Strengths An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to SLAC during contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure including omission of the required information of a proposal to meet a

SLAC requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Subcontract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Subcontract performance. A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful Subcontract performance. All significant weaknesses discovered will be identified to the Offeror during discussions, if conducted, and in any debriefing after award has been made. The Procurement Specialist may not award a Subcontract to any Offeror who fails to correct significant weaknesses that are deemed essential.

SLAC will evaluate each technical and business proposal as described below based on technical and business relevancy factors;

Technical Evaluation: All proposals will be evaluated utilizing a technical rating based on “Exceeding, Meeting and/or Not Meeting” the technical requirements.

Exceeds Requirements

Outstanding Overall Proposal. The proposal satisfies all of SLAC’s requirements with extensive detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows a thorough understanding of the problems and offers numerous significant strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low degree of risk in meeting SLAC’s requirements.

Meets Requirements Acceptable Overall Proposal. The proposal satisfies all of SLAC’s requirements with adequate detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows an understanding of the problems and offers some significant strengths or numerous minor strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall moderate degree of risk in meeting SLAC’s requirements.

Doesn’t Meet Requirements

Unacceptable Overall Proposal. The proposal contains minimum detail to indicate feasibility of approach, shows minimal understanding of the project, contains major error(s), omissions(s) or deficiency (ies) or involves a moderate to high risk.

Business Evaluation: The price evaluation will consist of a determination of completeness, realism, and reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price.

Completeness Price will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror provided sufficient data as required by the solicitation.

Realism

Prices will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed pricing is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements by the offeror, and is consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. Comparison of prices to the Independent Government Cost Estimate and other offers received will occur to assess that prices are not unrealistically low.

Reasonableness Prices will be established by effective competition and will be reviewed to assess that prices are not unreasonably high.

The business factors (Financial, Price & Contract Documentation) will be evaluated utilizing a business rating based on “Meets” or “Does Not Meet” the business requirements.

Technical Proposals will be evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Team. Pricing proposals will be evaluated by the Business Evaluation Team. Cost/price information may be provided to member of the Technical Evaluation Team as appropriate.

DEBRIEFINGS

Debriefings may be requested in writing within 3 days upon notification of non-award.

Debriefings should occur within 5 days of a written request. The discussion shall not include comparisons with the other proposals. An explanation of the evaluation of significant elements in the Offeror’s proposal, summary of the rationale for eliminating the Offeror from the competition and assure the Offeror that its proposal was treated fairly, impartially, and objectively. The Sr. Subcontracts Administrator will conduct debriefing(s).