Eval Factors.pdf

EVALUATION –

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS, ADDENDA

As required in 52.212-1(b), Submission of offers, the offeror shall also include the following information in their proposal package:

Factor 1 – Technical. The Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

Subfactor 1: Management/Organization/Staffing. This subfactor will assess the extent to which the offeror demonstrates that: (i) proposed key personnel qualifications and experience meet the requirements of the PWS and are sufficient to effectively manage the work required; (ii) the organization alignment segregates the functions logically, authority is delegated at appropriate levels, and span of control is sufficient to ensure all major functions will be accomplished with a high probability of success; and, (iii) the proposed staffing is sufficient to ensure all the areas of the PWS are executed successfully.

Subfactor 2: Executing Maintenance Tasks. This subfactor will assess the extent to which the offeror demonstrates that their proposed processes, equipment, schedule, and approaches will be adequate to ensure all maintenance services will be accomplished with a high probability of success.

Subfactor 3: Quality Control. This subfactor will assess the extent to which the offeror demonstrates that: (i) the proposed quality control (QC) plan provides for QC personnel with sufficient independence from site management personnel to ensure unbiased, accurate, QC functions; and, (ii) the inspection program and methods are sufficient to prevent deficiencies before they occur, and to identify and correct deficiencies in a timely manner.

Factor 2 – Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of this PWS. This evaluation includes considering the relevancy of the submitted past performance along with the quality of work on those recent efforts.

Relevant contracts are those completed or ongoing for the same or similar in nature, complexity, and dollar value to the work required in this solicitation’s PWS, section C.3. Contracts must have been completed within the last three (3) years from the solicitation release date. Ongoing contracts must be at least 50% complete or have been in place for at least one year by the solicitation release date. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the Contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three (3) years without regard to the contract award date.

Offerors shall provide a project narrative and reference information in narrative form to address each of the bullets below. All points of contact, addresses, telephone numbers, data, fax numbers, etc. should be verified by the offeror prior to submission to the Government as part of the offeror’s proposal. Points of contact should be knowledgeable of past performance from a contractual, managerial, and technical perspective. Provide the following:

Project Description Project Start & Ending Date Offeror’s role in the Project Contract Value/Actual Awarded Amount POCs, Phone, Fax, Address, Email Performance recognition documents Narrative description of relevancy to this PWS, mapped to the PWS where applicable.

Project Title

(ii) The Naval Facilities (NAVFAC)/USACE PPQ Form, electronically attached, is provided for the offeror to submit to the client for each contract the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2 – Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and e-mail addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with the offeror’s proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a contract(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective contract(s). The offeror 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, Mr. Richard Klein via email at Richard.C.Klein@usace.army.mil before the due date for proposal submission. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other Request for Proposals (RFP). However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation

(iii) In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE codes/DUNS 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), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

EVAL CRITERIA – HECSA O&M 2020

Factor 3 – Price. This factor will use price analysis to determine the total evaluated price. The offeror's price proposal will be evaluated using the price analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1 to help determine which proposal offers the best value to the Government.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) 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 following factors and subfactors shall be used to evaluate offers:

F actor 1 – Technical. The Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. Higher technical ratings will be given for greater demonstrated understanding of the requirements in the PWS, experience and previous/current successful first-hand experience directly supporting an operations and maintenance requirement.

Subfactor 1: Management/Organization/Staffing. This subfactor will assess the extent to which the offeror demonstrates that: (i) proposed key personnel (noted in PWS, section C.2.1.) qualifications and experience meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS and are sufficient to effectively manage the work required; (ii) the organization alignment segregates the functions logically, authority is delegated at appropriate levels, and span of control is sufficient to ensure all major functions will be accomplished with a high probability of success; and, (iii) the proposed staffing is sufficient to ensure all the areas of the PWS are executed successfully.

Subfactor 2: Executing Maintenance Tasks. This subfactor will assess the extent to which the offeror demonstrates that their proposed processes, equipment, schedule, and approaches will be adequate to ensure all maintenance services will be accomplished with a high probability of success.

Subfactor 3: Quality Control. This subfactor will assess the extent to which the offeror demonstrates that: (i) the proposed quality control (QC) plan provides for QC personnel with sufficient independence from site management personnel to ensure unbiased, accurate, QC functions; and, (ii) the inspection program and methods are sufficient to prevent deficiencies before they occur, and to identify and correct deficiencies in a timely manner.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focus on strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical factor/subfactor requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK

RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

Factor 2 – Past Performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of this PWS. This evaluation includes considering the relevancy of the submitted past performance along with the quality of work of those efforts. Highly 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 complexity, dollar value, and/or contract type.

Relevant contracts are those completed or ongoing for the same or similar in nature, complexity, and dollar value to the work required in this solicitation’s PWS, section C.3.

Contracts must have been completed within the last five (3) years from the solicitation release date. Ongoing contracts must be at least 50% complete or have been in place for at least one year by the solicitation release date. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposal.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and quality assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Past Performance on projects that are similar in size and scope to this project may be considered to be more advantageous to the Government. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(ii) Q UALITY ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The quality of the offeror’s relevant past performance will be determined by results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

P ERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is to provide a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of relevancy, and quality of performance

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Factor 3 – Price. Price will not be scored or rated, but will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. 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 shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable and may be rejected if the prices are unreasonably high.

The award will be made using trade-off procedures where the Technical and Past Performance factors are of equal weight. The sub-factors under Factor 1 are also of equal weight. Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic 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).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.