Detroit SWS Evaluation Factors-DRAFT.docx

EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume I – Technical (Non-Price) Submission Requirements and Evaluation Method

FACTOR 1 (TAB 1) – Experience

Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall submit project information for no more than three (3) projects for the prime, and if applicable, no more than two (2) projects for each proposed major subcontractor(s)*, completed or substantially completed** in the past 10 years before the proposal due date, that are comparable in size, scope, and complexity to the work required by this solicitation.

Information submitted for each project must include information outlined in Attachment A, Offeror’s Experience Form.

* Major subcontractors are defined as any subcontractor that is performing more than 10% of the contract value or is performing the following features of work; diving, blasting, excavation, concrete placement.

** Substantially completed is defined as having completed more than 75% of the project work at the time of proposal submission. If an offeror submits a project that it represents is “substantially complete”, the offeror must reasonably explain why the project is considered at least 75% complete. If an offeror submits an ongoing project without providing an accompanying reasonable explanation that explains how the project is at least 75% complete, the Government reserves the right to reject the project.

A maximum of three (3) projects for the prime and two (2) projects for each major subcontractor will be evaluated. If an offeror disregards these instructions and submits more than the maximum number of projects, only the first three (3) projects for the prime and two (2) projects for each subcontractor will be evaluated. Offerors should describe each project with enough detail to ensure that the Government can meaningfully assess how the projects submitted meet the evaluation criteria outlined below.

Instructions on the use of major subcontractors to fulfill major project phases of work Offerors may use the past experience of major subcontractors to demonstrate experience, however, if the Offeror is not assuming all roles in this contract, then the Offeror must clearly demonstrate through its Factor 1 proposal that the major subcontractor it proposes to use has the technical experience for that major project phase. Further, a signed letter of commitment from the proposed subcontractor, is required for the use of any major subcontractor’s experience.

Evaluation Method

In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following:

· The extent to which the Offeror’s past projects involved the following major features of work:

· Underwater excavation and construction by divers

· Blasting

· Precast concrete

· Post-tensioned anchor installation/rock bolting

· 10-foot diameter and larger, pressure pipe fabrication

· 10-foot diameter and larger, valve installation

· Industrial heavy hoist installation

· Heavy lifting

· The extent of the Offeror’s cumulative experience performing projects similar to that required by this solicitation

· Projects demonstrating experience performing Preconstruction Services will be given a higher rating than projects that do not demonstrate experience with Preconstruction Services.

Note: The Government may consider experience information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

The Government will rate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

FACTOR 2 (TAB 2) – Past Performance

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall provide past performance information for each project listed by the offeror under Factor 1 – Experience.

· If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, the offeror shall submit it with the proposal.

· If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, the offeror shall submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for the project. See Attachment B. Do not submit a PPQ when a completed CPARS is available.

· If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror shall complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s).

· Offerors should follow up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, [xxxx], via email at first.l.last@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. The offerors shall instruct the clients to refer to the solicitation number in the subject line.

· PPQs are source selection materials. All successfully submitted PPQs will receive an email confirmation upon receipt. If the offeror does not receive the confirmation, it is the offeror’s responsibility to follow up to ensure the government has received the information.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other procurements. However, this does not preclude the Government from using previously submitted past performance information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide explanation on problems encountered on past projects and the corrective actions taken by the offeror.

In addition to the above, the Government may review other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the PPIRS (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) including CPARS, using all CAGE/DUNS (Commercial and Government Entity Code/Data Universal Numbering System) numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, telephone interviews with organizations familiar with the offeror’s performance, Government personnel with personal knowledge of the offeror’s performance capability, and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

Evaluation Method

The Government seeks a contractor who maintains a strong commitment to customer satisfaction and superior performance. It is the offeror’s responsibility to affirmatively document these qualities in his technical proposal. In doing so, be mindful that “past performance” and “experience” are not identical. Experience measures what the offeror has done and how many times, or for how long, the offeror has done it. Past performance, however, measures how well the offeror has performed.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including text of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. For this solicitation, recent projects are those completed or substantially completed (as defined above) no more than ten (10) years before the date that proposals are due.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the work required by the solicitation. There are four levels of relevancy as shown in the table below.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

In assessing the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance, the Government will consider the following:

· The extent to which the Offeror’s past projects involved the following major features of work:

· Underwater excavation and construction by divers

· Blasting

· Precast concrete

· 10-foot diameter and larger, pressure pipe fabrication

· 10-foot diameter and larger, valve installation

· Industrial heavy hoist installation

· Post-tensioned anchor installation

· Rock bolting

· Heavy lifting

· The extent of the Offeror’s collective experience performing projects similar to that required by this solicitation.

More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The third aspect of the past performance is to determine how well the offeror performed on its past performance projects. If any performance issues are identified, the Government will consider the number, type and severity of the problems and effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

Based on a consideration of those three aspects for each project, the Government will assign a final Performance Confidence Assessment Rating for this factor. The Government will review the past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings using the table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and therefore may receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

FACTOR 3 (TAB 3) – Work Plan

Submission Requirements

The offeror shall provide detailed work plans for the major features of work to include Preconstruction Services and Construction.

Preconstruction Services. The offeror shall submit resumes of key personnel and a narrative describing the plan for supporting the design team during the development of plans and specifications. The plan shall include the following as a minimum:

· Resumes of Key Personnel

· Project Manager

· Superintendent (Underwater Construction Expert)

· Cost Estimator

· Scheduler

· Dive Expert

· Blasting Expert

· Precast Expert

· Narrative

· Where will the offeror’s office be located?

· How will the offeror interact with the design team?

· What kind of innovation will the offeror bring to the design team?

· How will the offeror help the design team improve constructability / construction methods and reduce risk through design?

Construction. The offeror shall submit a narrative and schedule describing the offers conceptual plan for constructing the SWS. It is understood that the plan for construction would not be finalized at this time. The Government is looking for the offeror to demonstrate technically feasible methods for constructing the SWS. The conceptual plan can include multiple alternatives for any construction task.

Evaluation Method The Government will rate this factor using the combined technical/risk rating as follows:

TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

The Work Plans will be evaluated on their approaches to the Major Features of Work. In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following when evaluating the offeror’s Work Plan:

· Whether the Offeror’s proposed schedule has realistic durations and timeframes for each required work task and includes work task sequencing in a logical order;

· Whether the Offeror’s proposed schedule and plan demonstrates the ability to complete the work on time, despite schedule constraints, fabrication and procurement of long lead items, and potential contingencies that may arise;

· The extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the offeror understands the scope of work and the challenges/risks to be encountered during construction (such as access restrictions, crane limitations, compressed schedule, environmental and permitting requirements, testing requirements, quality control requirements, demolition requirements, and commissioning requirements); and

· The extent to which the Offeror’s proposal has a realistic plan and sound approach to mitigate those challenges/risks.

A detailed and specific work plan will be rated higher than a vague and general work plan.

FACTOR 4 (TAB 4) – Small Business Commitment (Other than Small Business Only)

a. The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate the amount of work proposed to be performed by small businesses in relation to the total value of the project, as well as the types of work small businesses will be performing and the extent of commitment in using the identified small business firms (particularly major project phases – design, manufacturing, installation/testing, and demolition/removal).

b. Other Than Small Business Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed commitment to U.S. small businesses in the performance of this project relative to the objectives and goals established herein, as well as Offerors’ past performance complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

c. Other Than Small Business Offerors will be rated using the small business commitment rating method table below. NOTE: In accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), small business Offerors shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor without having to submit any information in connection with this factor.

Submission Requirements:

Other Than Small Business Offerors shall submit the following:

1) Small Business Commitment Document – Complete and submit Attachment C, Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD), to identify the extent to which small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition.

d. Other than small business Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed commitment to U.S. small businesses in the performance of this project relative to the objectives and goals established for the Corps’ Small Business Program, as well as Offerors’ past performance in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

e. The purpose of this criterion is to evaluate the amount of work proposed to be performed by small businesses in relation to the total dollar value of the project, the type of work small businesses will be performing and the extent of the commitment in using the identified small business firms (particularly major project phases – design, manufacturing, installation/testing, and demolition/removal).

f. Other than small business Offerors will be rated using the small business commitment rating method table below. NOTE: In accordance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.3(g)(3), small business Offerors shall receive the maximum rating under this evaluation factor without having to submit any information in connection with this factor.

Submission Requirements:

Other than small business Offerors shall submit the following:

1) Small Business Commitment Document – Complete and submit Attachment C, Small Business Commitment Document (SBCD), to identify the extent to which small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition.

2) A Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) Total Small Business Commitment goal of 12% of the total contract value (through small business participation from small-, small disadvantaged-, HUB Zone-, Service Disabled Vet-, Vet-, or Woman-owned small businesses).

3) Small Business Past Performance – Submit past performance information reflecting the Offeror’s past level of small business participation for each project listed by the Offeror under Factor 1, Past Performance. If the project was performed for a Federal agency, all Individual Subcontract Reports (ISRs) and Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) for the project must be submitted. Copies of ISR’s and SSR’s will not count against the proposal page limitation.

4) If project not performed for a Federal agency, for each project submitted under Factor 1, Past Performance, please submit the following:

(a) Name of the project & location.

(b) Total dollar amount of project and percentage of the contract’s total value self- performed.

(c) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract’s total value that was subcontracted.

(d) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract’s total value subcontracted to small businesses.

(e) Total dollar amount and percentage of the contract’s total value subcontracted to other than small businesses and

(f) If the project was performed for a Federal agency, all Individual Subcontract Reports (ISRs) and Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) for the project.

5) In addition to the above project submission information, the Government reserves the right to review Offerors ISRs and SSRs from the eSRS.

Evaluation Method:

The Government will rate this factor using the technical rating as follows:

g. In determining strengths and weaknesses, the Government will consider the following:

i. The extent of the Offeror’s proposed small business commitment in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition expressed in both percentage and dollar value.

ii. The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) small business goal and the suggested socioeconomic category goals. These goals are a percentage of the total value of the acquisition. A MQR small business commitment goal is assigned to this acquisition for the small business category:

{12%} Small Business (SB)

These goals are based on Total Contract Value.

In addition to the MQR small business goal, the following goals are suggested for the individual socioeconomic categories and determined to be reasonable based on market research for this requirement. Goals are expressed as a percentage of TOTAL contract value:

{5%} Small Disadvantaged Business {1%} Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) {0.5%} Historically Underutilized Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business {1%} Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) {0.5%} Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

iii. The extent to which proposed small business firms, are specifically identified by name in the SBDC (DFARS 215.304(c)(1)(C)). Firms must also be listed in the subcontracting plan.

iv. The extent of commitment to use the identified small business firms (enforceable and/or long-term commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable commitments). Copies of written commitments must be provided

v. The complexity and variety of the work small businesses are proposed to perform (for example: work requiring specific certifications, i.e. welding, mechanical, electrical, manufacturing, supply, etc. to expand competitive pool - particularly major project phases – design, manufacturing, installation/testing, and demolition/removal).

vi. The extent of the Offeror’s past success in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (eSRS and CPARS evaluations).