Evaluation_Factors_and_Methodology_industrial_building.docx

EVALUATION FACTORS and METHODOLOGY

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

1.1 The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the public interest; accept an offer other than the lowest priced proposal; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received. The Government reserves the right to make award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Government awards without discussions, the offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor clerical errors. The vendor evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 13 including 13.5 and 12.6, utilizing streamlined acquisition procedures. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1.2 All factors and subfactors are listed in The factors are listed in descending order of importance, so Factor I is more important that Factor II and Factor II is more important that Factor III. When combined, non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

· Factor I – Technical Capability

· Factor II – Past Performance

· Factor III – Price

1.3 FACTOR I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

1.3.1 Proposals will be evaluated to ensure the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) can be met. BLS will evaluate proposals based on the following criteria:

1.3.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach based upon their technical proposal. The Technical Proposal must provide itemized responses for the requested information below. If the offeror is proposing more than one method to meet the criteria of the Statement of Work, then separate and complete proposals for each must be submitted in response to this solicitation.

Itemize the responses to correspond to the number for the requested information.

Please provide the following:

1. Name of: (a) project leader (b) person(s) directly responsible for model development, (c) person(s) responsible for completing quarterly cost updates, and (d) person(s) directly responsible for answering questions about the models and the cost update process.

2. A description of the source(s) of the project information for deliverable 1(project list) as described in the Statement of Work. The description should include where and how the information is collected, the frequency of the data collection, and the geographic scope of the data collection. The description should also state how the collected data are reviewed and verified for accuracy and completeness.

3. The total number of projects that the vendor will provide to BLS to satisfy the requirements of deliverable 1 (project list) as listed in the statement of work. The number provided in response to this request should represent only projects that would be considered “new industrial” by BLS.

4. The number of projects in each of the four regions (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) that the vendor will provide to BLS to satisfy the requirements of deliverable 1(project list) per the Statement of Work. See the definition of each region in the Statement of Work. (The sum of the projects in the four regions should equal the number of projects provided in response to number 3 above.)

5. A sample of 20 project records (5 from each region) that satisfy all of the requirements of deliverable 1 per the Statement of Work. This sample list of projects should be provided in a Microsoft Excel format with each row being a single project record and include all of the requested information for deliverable 1 (project list) as stated in the Statement of Work.

6. A description of the process the offeror plans to follow in order to select and develop the specific assemblies/components for the models such that the assemblies represent current ‘typical’ construction practices.

7. A description of how the offeror will verify that the assemblies in the model meet various building code requirements given the type, size, and intended use of the structure.

8. A description of the origin and scope of all data that will be used to satisfy deliverable 6 (quarterly cost updates) as stated in the Statement of Work.

9. A complete listing of all materials for which cost information will be directly collected from survey respondents for the purposes of performing the cost updates.

10. A complete listing of all labor types for which cost information will be directly collected from survey respondents in order to perform the cost updates. Indicate for each labor type whether the data collected is for union or nonunion labor rates. If it is a mix of both union and nonunion labor rates indicate if the data can be segregated into union and nonunion.

11. For each of the material and labor types provided in response to items 9 and 10 above, specify the minimum number of survey respondents expected to report cost data in each period and state what that period is (monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, etc).

12. Describe how the cost of any labor and/or material that is not directly collected from survey respondents will be updated each period.

13. Indicate if fuel, equipment rental, or any other cost data other than material and labor will be directly collected from survey respondents for the purpose of updating costs in the model. Also indicate how frequently (monthly, quarterly, annually, etc) the fuel, equipment rental, or other cost data are collected and can be used to update the building models.

14. Provide a description of how the cost data collected to satisfy deliverable number 6 (quarterly cost updates) are to be verified.

15. Describe the process that will be used to identify cost data (collected to satisfy requirements for deliverable 5 (quarterly cost updates)) with movement (or lack of movement) that is outside of the norm. Also describe how these cost data are to be adjudicated.

16. Will any cost data that are accurately and correctly reported by survey respondents undergo any adjustment after the data are collected? If so, how and why is it adjusted?

17. Describe how the cost updates will be applied to the models so as to only reflect cost changes occurring within the region for which the model was designed.

1.3.3 In performing the technical capability evaluation, each subfactor will be assigned a separate rating, and then an overall rating will be given from the ratings below:

TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

1.4 FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

1.4.1 The past performance evaluation will be accomplished though assignment of a confidence assessment rating based on a combination of the relevancy, reliability, and quality of performance of the examples provided. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Capability Subfactors, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated capability and past experience in acquisitions and procurements in complex acquisition environments that involved performance and analysis described in the SOW, particularly such work conducted for federal agencies.

1.4.2 Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet the user’s needs, including but not limited to, controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), and performance (reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer). As a result of this analysis, each Offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. In performing the past performance evaluation, each Offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings described below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

HIGH

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has high confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SIGNIFICANT

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has significant confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable.

LITTLE

CONFIDENCE

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

NO

CONFIDENCE

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

1.4.3 This factor will be evaluated on the basis of information obtained concerning the Offeror’s performance on contracts, consistent in scope and complexity with this solicitation, that were performed during the last five (5) years.

1.4.4 Past performance information will be obtained through questionnaires tailored to the circumstance of this acquisition. The Offeror will complete a Past Performance Information Sheet (see Attachment 1) send out a Past Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment 3) for each reference. Past Performance Questionnaire’s completed by sub-contractors will be accompanied by the consent form (see Attachment 2.)Their selected references must return it to the CO by email as instructed on the questionnaire.

1.4.5 Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); interviews with program managers and COs, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. If an Offeror is unable to provide a Past Performance Questionnaire, though not preferable, a relevant and recent CPARS report may be used in lieu of the questionnaire. However, it must be submitted in PDF format in accordance with the instructions for submittal in Attachment 3. A CPARS submission will be treated the same as a questionnaire for rating purposes.

1.4.6 Offerors shall provide three (3) references that are most relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

1.4.7 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated capability and past experience creating and updating building type data models or similar projects that involved performance and analysis as described in the SOW, particularly such work conducted for federal agencies. The Department of Defense, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting may be used as part of the evaluation.

1.4.8 The evaluation will be based on relevant performance that demonstrates: Quality of service demonstrated by compliance with contract requirements, accuracy of reports and overall technical excellence. Timeliness performance demonstrated by meeting milestones, reliability, and responsiveness to direction. Business relations as demonstrated by effective management, effective use of small/small disadvantaged business in subcontracting plan, reasonable/cooperative behavior, flexible, effective contractor recommended solutions and business like concerns for the Government‘s interest.

1.4.9 The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ or teaming partners’ involvement) based on the data provided or obtained. The Government may not necessarily agree with the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Each previous/current contract provided in the proposal will receive one of the relevancy ratings listed below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

VERY

RELEVANT

Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope, qualifications, number of personnel, range of labor categories and complexity the solicitation requires

NOT

RELEVANT

Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the scope, qualifications, number of personnel, range of labor categories and complexity the solicitation requires

1.4.10 More relevant performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less relevant efforts.

1.4.11 In determining relevancy, consideration will be given, but not limited to experience creating and updating building type data models, or similar projects. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

1.4.12 If an Offeror has no single project that encompasses all types of the required experience, the Offeror may show relevant experience through personnel who are proposed to work on the contract that have had the required experience with another company.

1.4.13 Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. For Offerors with no relevant performance record, the Government may consider relevant performance information regarding key personnel.

1.4.14 Adverse past performance is considered any rating below Satisfactory on any questionnaire, survey or Government evaluation. Offerors with adverse past performance may be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies if the Offeror has not already been provided an opportunity to comment on the deficiencies in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2) and FAR 15.306(b)(4). Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any implemented corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

1.4.15 Quality of performance assesses how well the Offeror performed. This will be assessed based on the ratings received in the Past Performance Questionnaires.

1.5 FACTOR III – PRICE

1.5.1 The approach to the source selection for this procurement will be pursuant to a best value concept. The objective is to select the proposal that offers the best value for the Government, not necessarily the lowest price. However, as the performance confidence assessments of the Offerors become more equal in past performance ratings, price may become a determining factor in award selection.

1.5.2 Although Price is least in importance, it will contribute to the source selection decision. While Price will not be rated, as are Factors I and II, it will be evaluated as follows:

(a) Total Evaluated Price: Price reasonableness will be conducted for all Offerors. However, reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price (base plus four option). The Government will review the Pricing submissions for completeness and accuracy. The Government will review the Offeror’s total price (a base plus four option periods) for the requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(b) For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price.

1.5.3. Offerors shall provide pricing that is firm fixed price. Pricing proposals shall conform to the table below for each option year. Offeror shall submit detailed price information in the format below and include any other line items and price information necessary to complete all tasks in the SOW.

LINE ITEM 0001: The contractor shall provide New Industrial Building Construction Data (Base Year) ________ x 1 = ________ Producer Price Index (PPI) program required data and services to aid in creating four regional (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) industrial building models accordance with the attached SOW. POP: 8/15/2015 through 5/31/2016

LINE ITEM 1001: The contractor shall provide New Industrial Building Construction Data (Option Year I year) ________x 4 = ________ Producer Price Index (PPI) program required data and services to aid in quarterly updating four regional (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) industrial building cost models accordance with the below SOW. POP: 6/1/2016 through 5/31/2017

LINE ITEM 2001: The contractor shall provide New Industrial Building Construction Data (Option Year II year) ________x 4 = ________ Producer Price Index (PPI) program required data and services to aid in quarterly updating four regional (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) industrial building cost models accordance with the below SOW. POP: 6/1/2017 through 5/31/2018

LINE ITEM 3001: The contractor shall provide New Industrial Building Construction Data (Option Year III year) ________x 4 = ________ Producer Price Index (PPI) program required data and services to aid in quarterly updating four regional (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) industrial building cost models accordance with the below SOW. POP: 6/1/2018 through 5/31/2019

LINE ITEM 4001: The contractor shall provide New Industrial Building Construction Data (Option Year IV year) ________x 4 = ________ Producer Price Index (PPI) program required data and services to aid in quarterly updating four regional (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West) industrial building cost models accordance with the below SOW. POP: 6/1/2019 through 5/31/2020

1.5.4 After an evaluation of Factors 1 and 2 has been completed and rankings have been established, the price to the Government will be compared against these rankings to determine the combination most advantageous to the Government. Because the Option to Extend Services will be included in this requirement, the Government will add six month’s value to the final option year in conducting the price evaluation. The price evaluation may consider, but is not limited to, the following, or a combination of the following:

Comparison to other offerors Comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate Comparison to other historical data

ATTACHMENT 1

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SHEET (PPIS)

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SHEET (PPIS)

Provide the information requested in this form for each Past Performance Reference as required by 1.4.4. Provide frank, concise comments regarding performance on the reference you identify. Provide a separate completed form for each reference submitted. Submit the forms as part of the Past Performance Volume.

A. Offeror Name (Company/Division):

*Please identify if you are a teaming member or subcontractor with the prime

Cage Code:

DUNS Number:

(NOTE: If the company or division performing this effort is different than the offeror or the relevance of this effort to the instant acquisition is impacted by any company/corporate organizational change, note those changes below. Refer to the "Organizational Structure Change History" you provided as part of your Past Performance Volume).

B. Program Title:

C. Contract Specifics:

1. Contracting Agency or Customer:

2. Citation Number:

3. Contract Type:

4. Period of Performance:

5. Original Contract $ Value (Do not include unexercised options):

6. Current Contract $ Value (Do not include unexercised options):

7. If the amounts for 5 and 6 above are different, provide a brief description of the reason below.

8. Original completion date:

9. Current scheduled completion date:

10. Estimated completion date:

11. Number of contract changes:

12. Enter primary cause for contract changes below:

D. Enter below a brief description of effort as Prime or Subcontractor.

E. Primary customer points of contact. (For Government contracts/orders, provide current information on all three individuals. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles.)

Name

Office

Address

Telephone

FAX #

E-Mail

F. Address below any technical (or other) area about this citation considered unique.

G. Describe the relevancy to the Technical Capability, Factor 1, Subfactor 1 for which this citation applies. Illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that subfactor.

H. Subcontracting Plan Requirements.

1. Was a subcontracting plan required? _______ If YES, go to # 2. If NO, skip this section.

2. Planned goal (%)

Achieved goal (%)

3. Explain below why goals were not met.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONSENT FORM

CONSENT FORM

FOR THE RELEASE OF PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR

Past performance information concerning teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the teaming partner's consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor past performance information to the prime during exchanges. In an effort to assist the Government's Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following consent form be completed by the major teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume.

SAMPLE

Dear (Contracting Officer)

We are currently participating as a (teaming partners) with (prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (location) request for Proposal (solicitation number) for the (program title or description of effort).

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections. In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment process we are signing this consent form to allow you to discuss our past performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

(Signature and Title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

ATTACHMENT 3

(Attachment 3) PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

WHEN FILLED IN, THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

IAW FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Mail-in Past Performance Questionnaire

TO: Government agency or commercial organization (i.e., customer) with knowledge of the Offeror's past performance.

Please complete this questionnaire, which concerns the past performance of a contractor or subcontractor who is doing business (or has done business) with you, and is interested in doing business with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Handwritten responses are sufficient. If you need more space than that provided, please attach additional pages. Responses will be treated as source selection sensitive information. The contractor who provided DOL with your name as a reference was informed, via a solicitation provision, that by listing you as a reference and requesting your submission of the questionnaire, they are authorizing you to release information to DOL relative to their past performance, whether it is positive or negative information.

Email the completed questionnaire to the attention of the responsible Contracting Officer. The Offeror must fill in the solicitation number, fax number, email address, and name of Contracting Officer below, prior to providing you with the questionnaire, or provide you with the information to fill in. Your completed questionnaire must be provided directly to the Contracting Officer from you. DOL will not accept completed questionnaires sent from the Offeror.

Offeror: Complete SECTION 1, then e-mail questionnaire to the customer points of contact listed on the Past Performance Information Sheet for the contract identified.

Offeror’s Evaluator: Complete SECTIONS 2-3 and e-mail to: dell.kristin@bls.gov and chaney.lasondia@bls.gov.

(DO NOT PROVIDE COPY BACK TO THE OFFEROR)

SECTION 1: CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor

B. Prime Contractor Cage Code

C. Contract Number

D. Contract Type

No

F. Period of Performance

G. Initial Contract Cost ($)

H. Current/Final Contract Cost ($)

I. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs (enter below):

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer or Agency Name

B. Customer or Agency Description (if applicable)

C. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e., local, nationwide, worldwide, other Command

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's Name

B. Evaluator's Title

C. Evaluator's Phone/Fax Number

D. Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract

SECTION 4: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

What were the contractor’s greatest strengths in the performance of the contract?

What were the contractor’s greatest weaknesses in the performance of the contract?

Would you have any reservations about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104