Evalaution Criteria General Instuction to Offeror.pdf

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

(a) GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1. All proposal preparation cost will be the sole responsibility of the Offeror. The Government will not reimburse any firm for their proposal preparation cost.

2. Cost proposals and Technical proposals of each offeror will be evaluated independently. Offerors shall separately bind each. All copies shall therefore be labeled with the offerors name, business address, and VA Solicitation Number.

3. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The offer shall consist of three (3) separate parts:

• Part I - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

• Part II – PAST PERFORMANCE

• Part III – PRICE

(b) SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

1. PART I - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Submit original and two (2) copies and 1 CD.

Professional Qualifications, Design Schedule & Experience shall be limited to no more than 15 pages total. The Quality Control plan shall be limited to no more than 10 pages total.

Format as follows:

TAB A: General Information

a. Cover page with Solicitation Number and Project Title

b. Table of Contents

c. Company information to include: DUNS Number, Cage Code, Tax ID Number, Principle points of contact with addresses, phone numbers and email addresses.

TAB B: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY (Evaluation Factor 1)

a. Professional Qualifications – Sub factor 1

b. Design Schedule – Sub factor 2

c. Quality Control Plan – Sub factor 3

d. Experience – Sub factor 4

2. PART II – PAST PERFORMANCE - Submit questionnaires to references. (Exhibit A)

a. Past Performance Questionnaires: The contractor shall send out the enclosed past performance questionnaires to each of their references listed under the Experience technical factor or any other references that the offeror deems necessary. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance deemed relevant and recent to the requirements of this solicitation.

b. The references must return the survey directly to the Government Contract Specialist listed on the survey via email.

3. PART III - PRICE PROPOSAL - Submit 1 original and 1 CD. Format as follows:

TAB A: General Information

a. Cover page with Solicitation Number and Project Title

b. Table of Contents

c. Company information to include: DUNS Number, Cage Code, Tax ID Number, Principle points of contact with addresses, phone numbers and email addresses.

TAB B: Offer, Guarantee, and Certifications

a. Complete the SF 1442, Blocks 14, 15, 17, 19, 20A, 20B, 20C and 30. An official having the authority to bind your company contractually must sign and date the SF 1442 Block 30b. One copy of the SF 1442 must bear an original, authorized signature. In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP. All sections of the RFP, excluding Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Procedures Sections, constitute the model contract.

b. Complete the PROPOSAL ITEM LIST on page 4. As part of their proposal, each Offeror shall be required to complete the attached Base Offer Price Breakdown Form for Proposal Item I only.

c. Complete 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (Page 32), paragraph (d) (page

32) applies to this contract. 52.209-5 (page 36) – complete sections (b) (1) and (2), and 52.209-7 (page 36) paragraph (b). Print out these provisions in their entirety and submit it with the proposal. Offerors shall submit only those pages that require fill-in.

d. Bid Bond/Offer/Guarantee

e. Acknowledgement of Amendments

f. Copy of VetBiz Registry printout showing your firm as a verified SDVOSB.

(c) GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

Format for proposal Part I & II shall be as follows:

• A page is defined as one face of an 8 ½” x 11” sheet of paper containing information.

• Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.

2. The Offeror, separately (but included in the same sealed envelope) shall submit an original, TWO

IDENTICAL COPIES (including any colored images, tabs, etc.) of a detailed technical proposal in a format that clearly addresses the technical evaluation factors below. You shall also submit your technical proposal on a CD.

3. Each response shall address each factor in the sequence listed and clearly identify which factor is being addressed.

4. There shall be no mention of costs in the Technical Proposal.

5. Proposals shall be submitted electronically (via email) to the address below by or on the set forth due date:

Mark Griffin Mark.griffin2@va.gov And Guy Brooks Guy.brooks@v.agov

6. FEDERAL HOLIDAYS: The following Federal Legal Holidays are observed by this Medical Facility:

• New Year’s Day – 1 January

• Martin Luther King’s Birthday – Third Monday in January

• Presidents Day – Third Monday in February

• Memorial Day – Last Monday in May

• Independence Day – 4 July

• Labor Day – First Monday in September

• Columbus Day – Second Monday in October

• Veterans Day – 11 November

• Thanksgiving Day – Fourth Thursday in

• November Christmas Day – 25 December

• Any other Federal Holiday granted by the President of the United States

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

(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 shall be used to evaluate offers:

mailto:Mark.griffin2@va.gov mailto:Guy.brooks@v.agov

• Part I - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

• Part II – PAST PERFORMANCE

• Part III –PRICE

(b) All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

(c) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection in which technically acceptable competing Offerors will be moved on to Cost or Price; cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

PART I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

First, the technical capability of all offers will be evaluated on an ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE basis. Professional Qualifications, Design Schedule, Quality Control Plan, and Experience sub-factors will be weighted equally and all areas must have an ACCEPTABLE rating. Because risk of unsuccessful performance is expected to be minimal, risk is not separately evaluated, but instead is included as part of the technical capability and will be evaluated for acceptability only.

NOTE: Those offers not meeting the minimum standard for acceptability will not be considered for award.

Professional Qualifications, Design Schedule, Quality Control Plan and Experience sub- factors will be weighted equally and all areas must have an ACCEPTABLE rating. The Technical capability sub-factors ratings of ACCEPTABLE will be required in order to be considered for award.

Evaluators shall assign a rating of ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE based on the minimum requirements stated below.

A. Sub-Factor 1 – Professional Qualifications Professional Qualifications Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the Minimum Standard requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the Minimum Standard requirements of the solicitation.

1. CRITERIA: Offeror must provide an organizational block identifying key on-site personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope (commercial building remodel/renovation; minimum threshold value of $500,000) to those expected under this proposal.

Additionally, the Offeror must provide a narrative describing the organization’s program management policies, procedures, and processes, along with the performance history of similar scope and sized projects (commercial building remodel/renovation; minimum threshold value of $500,000), the Offeror’s Site Superintendent, Quality Assurance Manager and Safety Manager have accomplished.

2. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides:

a. An organizational block identifying on-site key personnel associated with this requirement to include:

i. Key personnel: Each individual’s name, title, duty, years of experience and experience level relating to similar contracts in size and scope (commercial building remodel/renovation; minimum threshold value of $500,000).

ii.

The narratives for the Architects and Engineers Manager must show a minimum of two

(2) years’ experience for each respective discipline on a project of similar size and scope (commercial building remodel/renovation; minimum threshold value of $500,000), showing project history with these key personnel in relations to the project’s description.

iii. A description of the organization’s program management policies and procedures to include project planning approach, the process for information flow, reporting, and the policies and procedures for maintaining and recruiting qualified staffing throughout the contract period for prime and subcontractor employees in accordance with the Statement of Work.

B. Sub-Factor 2 – Design Schedule Design Schedule Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

1. CRITERIA: Offeror must provide a proposed design schedule not to exceed 365 calendar days.

Prepare and submit a practicable design schedule laying out all necessary performance elements needed to complete this project identified in the solicitation in the proposed period of performance. The schedule must be in the form of a progress chart of suitable scale to indicate appropriately the percentage of work scheduled for completion by any given date during the performance period. In addition, the schedule must be submitted in the Microsoft Project format. Offerors should only include the work elements necessary to complete the required work. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to identify all necessary project/work elements and the proposal adequately identifies acceptable critical path elements.

2. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The schedule must be submitted in the Microsoft Project format. Offerors should only include the work elements necessary to complete the required work. The approach shall address the start and completion of each design phase.

C. Sub-Factor 3 – Quality Control Plan Schedule Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

1. CRITERIA The plan shall identify personnel, procedures, control, instructions, test, records, and forms to be used. A finalized, more detailed Quality Control Plan (QCP) will be required to be submitted and approved after contract award.

2. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standards of acceptability are met when the Offeror provides:

a. A description of the quality control system, including a chart showing lines of authority and acknowledgement that the Quality Control (QC) Manager shall implement the three-phase control system for all aspects of work specified. The QC System Manager shall report to the project manager or someone higher in the Contractor’s organization. Project Manager in this context shall mean the individual with responsibility for the overall management of the project including quality and production. The approach shall also clearly address the QC organizational lines of authority and the Offeror’s approach to monitor corrective actions ensuring successful and timely problem resolution. The detailed QC approach shall identify how quality inspections will meet the minimum requirements of the Specifications. The QCP shall effectively address how the Offeror will correct identified discrepancies found during QC checks and the process to provide resolution to the CO/COR for any discrepancies identified in the Specifications or design.

b. The names, qualifications (in resume format), duties, responsibilities, and authorities of each person assigned as Quality Control (QC) manager. Any replacements must have similar qualifications in dealing with projects of similar size and scope.

D. Sub-Factor 4 – Experience Experience - Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s experience, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort and has the needed experience.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s experience, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort and does not have the needed experience.

1. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) examples of their choice of completed projects or in progress of similar contracts in size and scope (commercial building remodel/renovation; minimum threshold value of $500,000).

when the Offeror provides a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) examples of their choice of completed projects or in progress of similar contracts in size and scope (commercial building remodel/renovation; minimum threshold value of $500,000). In describing the experience, provide the following information:

a. Project title, location and brief description including the building use (Medical Facility, etc) and contracting method (design build, design bid construct, CM at risk, Turnkey, etc).

b. Project owner and name and telephone number of owner’s contact person.

c. Indicate your firm’s role as a prime contractor or subcontractor, etc.

d. Project Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors and name and telephone number of contact person(s).

e. Project Statistics including start and completion dates (original vs. actual) for design; cost (with brief explanation of what is included in the cost); square footage; and any awards (prizes) received.

f. Please use the Corporate Experience Form (Exhibit B) included with the solicitation to provide the requested information for Experience.

PART II – PAST PERFORMANCE

Next, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated past performance of projects in order to determine the offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully and help determine responsibility.

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: Offerors with no relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be given a neutral rating.

1. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references of their choice of projects of similar contracts in size and scope (commercial building remodel/renovation;

minimum threshold value of $500,000). The Offeror must provide for each reference the reference's company name, POCs, address, contact information to include phone number and e-mail address, project description, dollar value and period of performance. The Government will consider and evaluate Offeror's past performance information, to include the references, which are deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP

a. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 6 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

b. Relevancy Assessment: An evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the provided design performed under those contracts relate to a similar size and scope as those required by this solicitation. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime contractor and/or subcontractors. The past performance information obtained from sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

when the Offeror provides minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references of their choice of projects of similar contracts in size and scope (commercial building remodel/renovation; minimum threshold value of $500,000) in which the Offeror adhered to period of performances. The Offeror must provide for each reference the reference's company name, POCs, address, contact information to include phone number and e-mail address, project description, dollar value and period of performance.

The Government will consider and evaluate Offeror's past performance information, to include the references, which are deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP

PART III – PRICE PROPOSAL

A. Finally, offers that are deemed technically acceptable shall be ranked according to price, including all aspects of the proposal. The Offeror’s price proposal will be submitted in a separate volume. No price information is to be included in the technical sections of the proposal. Price will not receive a technical rating.

B. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by reviewing the total price of the proposal items to include all work, supplies, etc. to meet the solicitation. Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Each Offeror’s price proposal shall include the completed PROPOSAL ITEM LIST the completes the Base Offer Price Breakdown Form for Proposal Item I only. Unrealistically low or high proposed costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that either the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

C. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of completeness or reasonable price information contained in any portion of an Offerors price proposal.

D. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial offer should contain that Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. Prior to discussions, a competitive range may be established and the Offerors within the competitive range will be part of the discussions. The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

E. Offers that are not technically acceptable cannot be selected, regardless of price.