Draft Section M -.pdf

RFP - GS-XXX-XX-XXX-XXX (ITCM)Section M

PART IV

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

DRAFT

Table of Contents

M.1 Method of Award 1

M.2 Basis for Award 1

M.3 Order of Importance 1

M.4 Technical Proposal Volume Evaluation 1

M.5 Relevant Experience and Past Performance Volume Evaluation 3

M.6 Price Proposal Volume Evaluation 4

M.7 O&M Relative Order of Importance 7

M.8 O&M Technical Proposal 8

M.9 O&M Prior Experience 8

M.10 O&M Past Performance 10

M.11 O&M Price Proposal 11

M.12 Contract Clauses 11

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 Method of Award

GSA anticipates awarding a contract to the Offeror proposal whose price and non-price factors representing the best value to the Government In order to fully assess and evaluate the merits of the submitted proposals, the Contracting Officer may seek clarifications from Offerors.

Offerors are advised that the GSA may utilize an outside Contractor and/or Consultant to assist in the evaluation of proposals. These outside Contractors will have access to any and all information contained in the Offeror’s proposals, and will be subject to appropriate conflict of interest, standards of conduct, and confidentiality restrictions.

M.2 Basis for Award

GSA reserves the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to reject any proposal it deems incomplete or unresponsive to the RFP requirements. GSA also reserves the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to reject all proposals and re-advertise at a later date.

GSA reserves the right to select an Offeror and award a contract based on initial proposals without further discussions. Therefore, initial proposals should contain the Offeror’s best terms from the standpoint of the evaluation factors identified in this RFP. However, GSA reserves the right to conduct discussions with those that are considered in the competitive range. At the conclusion of discussions, offerors will be requested to submit their revised final proposal.

Offerors are encouraged to propose innovative ideas for the comprehensive implementation of the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center property management and facility maintenance services outlined in this RFP. GSA anticipates awarding a contract to the responsive Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the government.

ITC Services as per Section C.2 thru C.5.11

M.3 Relative Order of Importance

All evaluation non price factors and subfactors that will affect contract award, when combined are approximately of equal importance when compared to cost or price.

Evaluation Factors:

● Technical Approach

● Past Performance

● Price

M-1

M.4 Technical Proposal (Volume I)

The evaluation criteria described and listed below form the basis by which each Offeror’s Technical Proposal Volume shall be evaluated. The evaluation shall be based on the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates its capability to perform the requirements outlined in this RFP.

a. Technical Approach: Evaluation of the technical approach will be based on the Offeror’s capability of carrying out all functions as the Key Program Areas and how it will meet the programmatic goals and address the entire program by showing a clear grasp of the complexity and synergy of the ITC along with a risk analysis which identifies anticipated or potential risks for each Key Program area.

b. Management Plan: Evaluation of the management plan will be based on the extent to which it reflects an effective, efficient, feasible, and practical level of understanding of the operating environment in accomplishing the tasks and deliverables of this solicitation from a management perspective in particular:

1.) Effectiveness of Offeror’s organizational structure, managerial capabilities, effective resources, as well as the transition plan, quality control plan and risk analysis to provide the required support services.

2.) Degree to which the resumes of Offeror’s Key Personnel (as defined in the Key Personnel Clause) reflect the professional/job experience, skills qualifications, and education/training levels that are sufficient to provide the required support services (see section L).

c. Staffing Plan: Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposed staffing plan will be based on the following:

1.) the offeror’s proposed recruiting/hiring program for staffing the contract with qualified personnel over the life of the contract.

2.) Position titles, salary statistics and labor efficiencies

3.) Annotated organizational chart (s) showing the staff used to perform each Key Program area and their interfaces

4.) A summary of the degree to which the resumes of Offeror’s Key Personnel (as defined in Attachment J.3) and the Key Personnel Clause (See Section H.1) reflect the complete professional/job experience, skills qualifications, and education/training levels that are sufficient to provide the required TCM services.

5.) For each Key Program area, the Offeror shall also provide the names of all other personnel proposed including a description of their specific assignments, and the

M-2 percentage of time (availability) each individual shall apply to this contract.

6.) A separate resume must be submitted for all Key Personnel proposed and the resume shall not exceed three (3) pages. The resume shall include a description of the employee’s experience in providing the related, similar services to those listed in Section C.

d. Marketing & Licensing Plan: Shall be evaluated to determine the probability of execution, based on current market dynamics and building condition, of Offeror’s strategies for licensing International Trade Center office and retail spaces. The plan shall include all rates, terms, and conditions Offeror believes the market will bear for International Trade Center space.

Offerors who provide clear direction to attract and retain private sector tenants, execute market-rate transactions (given current condition of the building), outline realistically achievable rates and terms and highlight building inefficiencies that can be easily addressed to increase the competitiveness of the International Trade Center shall be viewed favorably.

e. Draft Annual Operating Budget: Shall be evaluated based on completeness and clarity, covering each area within Section C (e.g. ITC license administration, parking, conference and event spaces, OM/FM, etc.). Offeror proposed staffing costs shall be broken out along with all projected management fees, service contract costs, projected revenues, etc.

The Staffing Plan, which shall be included with the Annual Operating Budget shall be evaluated based on completeness, and ability of Offeror to demonstrate that adequate staffing or third-party providers shall be in place to perform the services in Section C of this RFP at the time of execution of this contract.

Offerors who provide an operating budget, informed by its Inspection Report, that is broken out in enough detail for GSA to understand revenue and cost projections for the first full fiscal year of Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center operations under this contract by task shall be viewed favorably.

f. Management and Operational Plans (M/OP): Shall be evaluated to determine Offeror’s understanding of and plans for the regular maintenance and testing for all mechanical equipment and systems within the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center. Offerors who provide a M/OP that highlights responsible key personnel, implementation schedule for all maintenance (regular and preventative) and prioritized equipment and systems for repair based on Offeror’s inspection of Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center along with explanation for prioritization shall be viewed favorably.

g. Financial Internal Control and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Compliance Plan:

Shall be evaluated based on Offeror’s ability to demonstrate a clear understanding of CAS requirements and their current compliance or plan to achieve compliance prior to and up to the deposit of such revenue into the GSA designated U.S. Treasury Account. In addition, Offeror must provide a financial plan that demonstrates a checks and balance system that will verify all revenue generated and collected, provides a process flow that shows how the revenue is controlled and protected, accounted for, then deposited. Offerors who demonstrate an

M-3 understanding of CAS requirements and have robust internal financial controls designed to ensure financial stewardship of assets for the duration of contract shall be viewed favorably.

h. Subcontract Management Plan: The Offeror’s subcontracting plan will be evaluated to assess the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the small business subcontracting program’s objectives and GSA’s expectations with respect to the program and includes all the information, goals and assurances required by FAR 52.219-9 and GSAM 552-219-72. The three sub-factors evaluated herein are:

1. Demonstrate that its subcontracting plan represents a creative and innovative program that involves small, veteran-owned small, service-disabled veteran-owned small, HUBZone, small, small disadvantaged and women-owned small business

2. To include a description of the Offeror’s subcontracting strategies used in any previous contracts, significant achievements, and how this plan will build upon those earlier achievements

3. Demonstrate through its subcontracting goals that it understands the small business subcontracting program’s objectives and GSA’s expectations, and its commitment to taking those actions necessary to meet these goals or objectives. The negotiated Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the Contract.

M.5 Past Performance (Volume II)

The evaluation criteria described and listed below form the basis by which each Offeror’s Relevant Experience and Past Performance Volume shall be evaluated. The evaluation will be based on the extent to which Offeror demonstrates comparable experience satisfactorily performing services similar to those contained in Section C.

1. Relevant Experience: Shall be evaluated based on the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates experience performing as lead in a role and specific responsibilities of applicable Project Team Members comparable to what GSA requires at the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center.

Relevant experience performing services similar to those outlined Section C of this RFP for projects and/or building of similar size, scope, quality and complexity to the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center shall be looked upon favorably. Past experience which meets all of the criteria outlined above and occurred or is occurring in the Washington, DC market shall be looked upon more favorably.

2. Past Performance: Completed Past Performance Questionnaires shall be evaluated to determine the extent to which Offeror demonstrated:

a. Efficient and effective performance in providing high quality property management and facility maintenance services similar to those GSA is seeking at the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center as detailed in Section C

M-4 of RFP. Offeror shall provide a description of project/building size and scope (i.e.

mix of uses), an approximation of total project annual revenues broken down by source (e.g. office, retail, parking, etc.), and an approximation of total project operating costs.

b. Performance that conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract. Offeror shall provide organizational and staffing plans put in place to perform work.

c. Reasonableness and cooperativeness during performance of its responsibilities under its contract. Offeror shall provide a description of the type of work performed, Offeror’s and/or applicable Project Team Member’s role as either a prime or subcontractor, and any quantifiable or pictorial examples relevant to the corporate experience.

d. Commitment to customer satisfaction. Offeror shall provide project accomplishments (e.g. reduction in vacant space, increase in revenues/income, reduction in operating expenses, etc.)

Past Performance that demonstrates Offeror has met all the criteria outlined above and where, if given a chance, the applicable reference would select the Offeror again to provide the same services will be viewed favorably.

GSA may also consider Past Performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including federal, state and local government agencies, better business bureaus, published media, electronic databases, etc.

M.6 Price Proposal (Volume III) The evaluation criteria described and listed below form the basis by which each Offeror’s Price Proposal Volume shall be evaluated.

1. Financial Capacity: Selected Offeror shall not be asked to come out of pocket to cover any expenses associated with the performance of the services outlined in Section C.

However, GSA seeks an Offeror with the necessary corporate infrastructure, currently in place, to muster the resources necessary to immediately meet the needs of the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center. Offerors that can demonstrate this capacity through their submission of unaudited financial statements for the same period and certify in writing as to their accuracy..

2. Form Price Proposal: GSA seeks to align the performance of the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center with the fees paid to the selected Offeror. Offeror shall fully complete the Form Price Proposal included in Section B of this RFP. All proposed fees should be transparent and market standard for providing the services outlined in Section C. To the extent Offeror proposes fee terms that are above-market, it shall explain why in the remaining space provided in the Form Price Proposal in Section B.

M-5

To the extent Offeror proposes a fixed annual Base Management Fee in-lieu of a percentage of Gross Revenue, it shall explain the key decision factors that informed this decision.

GSA may determine that an Offeror’s Form Price Proposal is unacceptable if the proposed fee structure is significantly decoupled from the performance of the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center and/or if fees are significantly above market without sound reasoning.

O&M Services as per Section C.5.11 thru C.44 M.7 Relative Order of Importance All evaluation of non price factors and subfactors that will affect contract award, when combined are approximately of equal importance when compared to cost or price.

Evaluation Factors:

● Management Plan

● Prior Experience

● Past Performance

M.8 Technical Proposal (VOLUME IV)

Section I - Management Plan The evaluation criteria described and listed below form the basis by which each Offeror’s Technical Proposal Volume shall be evaluated. The evaluation shall be based on the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates its capability to perform the requirements outlined in this RFP.

1. Management Approach

a. Staffing Plan The Staffing Plan addresses how the Contractor intends to accomplish the requirements of the PWS using in-house and subcontracted resources. Proposals will be evaluated on the extent to which they propose to (1) provide for the maintenance of a qualified workforce; (2) ensure adequate and efficient resource coverage; and (3) minimize operational disruption as a result of contractor employee turnover and other constraints to employee availability.

b. Monthly Progress Communications Plan The Monthly Progress and Communications Plan addresses how the Contractor intends to communicate with GSA staff and other stakeholders. Quotes will be evaluated on the extent to which the plan proposed ensures (1) all concerned parties are informed and up to date on all building projects and issues; (2) the

M-6

Contractor’s plan facilitates strategic and tactical planning; and (3) pertinent information is systematically documented and provides for greater ease of access for personnel.

c. Quality Control Plan The Quality Control Plan addresses how the offeror intends to ensure the quality of services performed under this BPA. Quotes will be evaluated on the extent to which they provide for the continued operation of equipment and services, prevention of potential disruptions to equipment and services and the mely performance of required repairs and any other corrective action.

2 . Technical Approach

a. Preventive Maintenance (PM) Plan

The PM Plan addresses how the quoter intends to ensure all equipment and systems covered under the scope of the PWS requiring a PM procedure, tour, etc.

is continually accounted for, scheduled, documented, and completed as scheduled each month. Proposals will be evaluated on the extent to which the plan demonstrates an effective, compliant, and efficient operation and maintenance of all equipment and systems while ensuring maximum equipment life and minimum downtime. Plans that successfully and holistically integrate the use of the Government’s CMMS, customer service desk operations, quality control, and other aspects of the Contractor’s programs are viewed favorably.

b. NCMMS Usage and Data Management Plan

The NCMMS Usage and Data Management Plan addresses how the quoter intends to use and manage the NCMMS system and facility database. Quotes will be evaluated on the extent to which the plan demonstrates quality control, usage management, and system integration of accurate and reliable data within the system as well as information captured outside of the system.

c. Repair Plan

The Repair Plan addresses how the quoter intends to identify, document, and perform all levels of repairs covered under the scope. Proposals will be evaluated on the extent to which the plan demonstrates an understanding of the types of repairs under this scope, including required response mes, and the necessary documentation involved, to ensure quality materials and workmanship as well as safety to equipment, personnel, and tenants, as described in Section C.

M-7

d. The Project Management and Alteration

Project Assistance Plan addresses the proposal strategy for detailing the capabilities and specific value added services to satisfy the technical support of Government programs and projects as detailed in Section C. The plan should articulate the varying levels of resources available for different types of services, including the use of qualified in-house employees, corporate and/or subcontracted resources, and their roles in providing the service.

e. The Energy Conservation Approach

The energy conservation approach addresses how the quoter intends to save energy during the performance. Proposal will be evaluated on the extent to which this approach implements energy conservation initiatives to operate equipment and systems as efficiently as possible without compromising service to building tenants, as described in Section C.

M.9 Section II: Prior Experience (VOLUME IV)

This criterion will measure the breadth, depth and relevance of an offeror’s prior experience in performing projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the one described in this solicitation. Similar size is primarily determined by experience with facilities of a comparable square footage. Similar scope is defined by performance of the same type of services. And similar complexity is defined by the same types of facilities;

in this case general office, executive and special use space. Such projects must have involved operations and maintenance and related services. Prior experience by predecessor companies and or affiliated key personnel and subcontractors may be considered. Previous projects may have been governmental (federal, state, or local) or private sector contracts. Experience on similar projects for the Federal Government is considered an asset.

M.10 Section III: Past Performance (VOLUME IV)

This criterion will evaluate the quality of an offeror’s past performance in performing services for projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the one described in this solicitation. It assesses the offeror’s overall quality of past performance, record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; the offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the responsiveness of management; the offeror’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction;

including the offeror’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer, and the offeror’s overall performance on their contracts. Evidence of a history of successful

M-8 past performance as a team will be considered an asset for any Contractor Team Arrangements (CTAs), joint ventures and subcontracting arrangements.

M.11 Price Proposal (Volume V)

The Offeror's written price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes. Prices that are excessively high or low (without sufficient justification) may be considered unrealistic and unreasonable and may receive no further consideration. The Price Proposal will be compared to the Government prepared independent cost estimate to determine fair & reasonable pricing. Further, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options. The option periods will be evaluated to determine price reasonableness. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option price is significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Further, proposals will be assessed to identify any aspect that could have significant negative cost or revenue consequences for the Government.

M.12 Contract Clauses

52.217-3 Evaluation Exclusive of Options. (APR 1984) 52.217-4 Evaluation of Options Exercised at Time of Contract Award. (JUNE 1988) 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options. (JULY 1990) Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

52.225-17 Evaluation of Foreign Currency Offers. (FEB 2000)

M-9