Evaluation Criteria.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Basis of Award.

The Government contemplates award of a Cost-Plus Fixed Fee contract for Environmental Remediation Services (ERS) under NAICS Code 562910.

The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with source selection procedures as found in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS), Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2020 and this solicitation. The Offeror must be responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, conforms to the solicitation requirements, meets all technical requirements, and presents the best value to the government, using a tradeoff source selection process. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being considered unawardable.

1.1. Award without Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.215-1; however, the Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussion if it deems them to be necessary. Therefore, Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

1.2. Competitive Range/Discussions

If discussions are deemed necessary, they will be held only with those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The PCO may establish, with SSA approval, a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals.

The competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be notified as soon as practicable.

Discussions will include issuance of evaluation notices. An Offeror initially included in the competitive range may be eliminated from consideration for award during discussions. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit Final Proposal Revisions (FPR).

1.3. Award

To arrive at a source selection decision, the Government will evaluate the factors and proposed costs/price. The Government intends to award to the firm providing the proposal which are considered by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to be the best value to the Government using best value trade-off methods. The award may not be to the Offeror who provide the lowest price, but to the Offeror who provide the best value to the Government.

2. Evaluation Factors and Cost/Price Evaluation

2.1. Evaluation Factors. The Government will evaluate proposals based on the factors listed in Table 1 below. As established in Section L and this Section M of the solicitation, the following criteria will form the basis of proposal evaluation. The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance with the most important listed first (i.e.

Volume I, Factor I is more important than Volume I, Factor II, etc.).

TABLE 1 – PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposal Format – Factors are listed in descending order of importance

Volume I: Technical Proposal and Past Performance Information Factor 1: Resumes of Key Management Personnel for this Contract

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Organizational Chart/Management Approach

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Commitment Document

Volume II – Cost Information and Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors Tab 1: SF 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award (Section A) -Not Evaluated

Tab 2: Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors (Section K) -Not Evaluated

Tab 3: Cost Proposal Spreadsheet

Tab 4: Adequacy of the Offeror’s Cost Accounting System -Not Evaluated

Tab 5: Contractual Arrangements -Not Evaluated

Tab 6: Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Only Large Business Firms)

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

Volume I, Factors 1 and 3 will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria described below and will be given a rating in accordance with Table 2 below.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings. Technical merit which reflects the Government's confidence in each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in Volume I, Factors 1 and 3, to perform the requirements stated in the RFP, shall be evaluated and assigned a rating based on the following:

TABLE 2 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus,contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Volume I, Factor 2, Past Performance (Confidence Assessment of Previous Projects) will be used for the Past

Performance Evaluation. Volume I, Factor 2 will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria described in the following paragraphs below and will be given a rating in accordance with Table 3 below. Volume I, Factor 4 will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria described below and will be given a rating in accordance with Table 4 below.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. It is a holistic view of the Offeror’s history with respect to the present acquisition. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy, recency, and quality, which, considered together, are used to determine an overall confidence rating, as shown in the table below:

TABLE 3 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Performance Confidence Assessments

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

Neutral Confidence

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.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

Sources of Past Performance Information are as follows:

Past performance information may be provided by the Offeror, as solicited.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other Government databases.

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may contact the individual identified in the Offeror’s proposal to request specific information or to clarify concerns of the SSEB related to the project in Factor 1.

Offerors that have no past performance record to evaluate will not have that factor considered, either positively or negatively, in the evaluation of the proposal package. A “neutral” rating shall be assigned when an Offeror provides no past performance data and/or where none can be readily obtained. When arriving at a consensus score for past performance, evaluators shall consider a “neutral” rating as one that neither helps nor harms an Offeror’s chances of being awarded a contract.

3.1. Small Business Participation Commitment Document

The Small Business participation factor (Factor 4) will be assigned a rating based on the Table 4, below:

TABLE 4 – SMALL BUSINESS COMMITMENT ASSESSMENTS

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives

Technical Evaluation Factors.

Volume I, Factor 1: Resumes of Key Management Personnel for this Contract The resumes for the proposed key management personnel identified in Section L will be reviewed to verify that the personnel meet the minimum requirements specified in Section C, Paragraph 6.

Strengths or Significant Strengths may be given for proposals which demonstrate the following:

Key personnel that demonstrate experience that is recent (within 10 years of date of proposal submission) and exceeds the minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work.

Proposals which demonstrate personnel with experience working at the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site or comparable amphibole asbestos mine site.

Incorporation of qualified local personnel or subcontractors.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government determines enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract.

Weaknesses may be given for each of the following criteria:

• Resumes that do not clearly demonstrate the capabilities and experience of the proposed key personnel.

• Past projects that do not represent recent relevant experience in the same capacity/role as this solicitation.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government identifies as a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies will be given for proposals for the following:

Not addressing one or more material item(s) listed in Section L.

Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement.

Volume I, Factor 2: Past Performance (Confidence Assessment of Previous Projects)

The Government’s evaluation of past performance will examine how well Offerors have performed on past projects.

CPARS Ratings will be given the higher weight than Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ). The Government may, at its discretion, contact individuals other than those identified by the Offeror as references to verify the information contained therein. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror's performance history but may attribute more importance to work that was similar to the scope and types of projects as stated in Section C.

In the event an Offeror does not provide CPARS or PPQ ratings for its three (3) past projects, and there is no record of other relevant past projects in CPARS, the Offeror may receive a Neutral Confidence rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable; it is considered neutral. The Government may consider an assessment of substantial confidence or satisfactory confidence more favorably than a neutral confidence rating.

Although the SSEB may not rate an Offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance the SSA may determine, that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in the best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality, which, considered together, are used to determine an overall confidence rating. These are described below.

Recency:

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Recency is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance occurred.

The Government will consider projects that are complete within 10 years from the initial proposal due date or be 90% financially complete from the initial proposal due date. Projects whose completion date is closer to the original date the offers are due will have more impact on the overall past performance evaluation. However, they may or may not overshadow older performance records considering the nature of the ratings, statements, and volume of records.

Relevancy:

The Government will consider the experience provided in the example projects when determining the relevancy of past performance data and use those submissions as a part of the confidence assessment.

Projects submitted without qualifying past performance data to support them may be considered for relevancy;

however, the lack of qualifying performance data may have a significant negative impact on the confidence assessment.

In determining the relevancy of each submitted project, the Government will consider the following:

The extent to which the submitted project(s) meet the parameters set forth in Section L for past projects to be submitted for Factor 1 (Past Performance), to include prime contractor involvement, timeframe when the project was completed, type of the project, whether the project(s) were cost reimbursement, and cost control.

Similarities of projects to the types described in Section C, to include, complexity, nature of work, work elements, schedule duration, and scope.

Whether submitted projects meet the requirements identified in Section L.

Quality:

This is an assessment of the quality of the contractor’s performance, to include: comparison of past quality ratings to requirements contemplated under this scope; performance evaluation ratings; responsiveness to customer concerns; cost growth and adherence to budget; time growth, timeliness and adherence to schedule; quality and quality control measures; management of personnel and subcontractors; compliance with safety standards/safety plan; regulatory compliance; overall customer satisfaction.

Volume I, Factor 3: Organizational Chart/Management Approach

The Offeror shall provide an organizational chart/technical approach that demonstrate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s organizational structure and management approach to adequately perform the requirements of the RFP.

The Government seeks a structure and approach that will demonstrate effective project execution.

Strengths or Significant Strengths may be given for proposals which demonstrate the following:

• Proposals that properly explain project-specific risks and challenges to completing the project objectives within the specified time.

• Proposals that provide solutions to advance and expedite remedy selection in the event of delays caused by the Responsible Party.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government determines enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the

Weaknesses or Significant Weaknesses may be given for the following:

An organizational technical approach that sets forth lines of authority, chains of commands, responsibilities, and communication procedures that are contrary to efficient and effective project management of the types of work anticipated under this contract.

An organizational chart and/or organization technical approach that does not thoroughly explain or clearly identify the roles, responsibilities, and flow of communication both internally and with the Government.

Omission or incompleteness of any requested information requested in Section L that is otherwise not rated as deficiency.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government determines enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the

Deficiencies will be given for proposals for the following:

Not addressing one or more material item(s) listed in Section L.

Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement.

Volume I, Factor 4: Small Business Participation Commitment Document

Evaluation Criteria:

Strengths or Significant Strengths may be given for the following:

• Proposed commitments that exceed the goals provided.

• Demonstrated commitments to use small business firms on the anticipated projects through enforceable agreements.

• Demonstrated past performance that show extensive use of small business firms for similar types of projects.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government determines increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Weaknesses or Significant Weaknesses may be given for the following:

• Proposed commitments that do not meet the goals provided.

• Ambiguous language that does not provide any demonstrated commitment to use small business firms on projects under the anticipated contract.

• Little or no written commitment to use small business firms.

• Any other aspect of a proposal that the Government determines increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies shall be given for the following:

• Not submitting required information in Factor 4 above.

• Any other material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Volume II, Price Information and Representations, Certifications and Other Statement of Offerors

(Tab 1 and 2)

These tabs will not be evaluated but must be completed in order to become eligible for award.

Volume II, Tab 1: SF33. This tab will not be evaluated. The SF33 shall be filled out completely by the Offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The Offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, if applicable.

Volume II, Tab 2: Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors (Section K). This tab will not be evaluated but must be completed in order to become eligible for award. Annual Representations and Certifications will be obtained through the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) site for contractors that have worked with the Government and are registered in SAM. All contractors should provide the completed Section K or provide a printout of the information in SAM.

Volume II, Tab 3: Cost Proposal Spreadsheet.

The total evaluated price will be the sum of all costs proposed by the Offeror in the Cost Proposal Spreadsheet. All pricing within the Cost Proposal Spreadsheet must be consistent with the instructions and requirements outlined in Section L. Failure to comply with Section L instructions will render the proposal non-responsive.

While the total evaluated price will not be scored or rated, it will be a significant factor in the best value tradeoff decision. The Government will conduct price and/or cost analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) or (c) to determine the reasonableness of proposed prices. Cost realism analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) to determine whether the proposed cost elements: (1) are realistic for the scope and complexity of the work; (2) reflect a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements; and (3) are consistent with the Offeror's technical approach and resources described in its technical proposal. The Government reserves the right to request additional data beyond certified cost or pricing data to determine the fairness and reasonableness of proposed prices.

Award may be denied to Offerors if:

• The total evaluated price is determined to be unreasonable or exhibits a lack of cost realism indicating a misunderstanding of the requirements.

• Proposed fully burdened labor rates are determined to be unreasonable, inconsistent with market norms for the stated labor categories, or unsupported by adequate documentation.

• There is a significant imbalance in pricing among the various line items that creates an unacceptable risk to the Government.

While cost/price is not the only evaluation factor, an Offeror may not be selected for award if its price proposal is determined to be unreasonably high, lacks cost realism, or is not considered fair and reasonable. The Government's determination will be based on the cost/price analysis and cost realism analysis performed as described above.

Volume II, Tab 4: Contractual Arrangements.

This tab will not rated; however, the Offeror must submit the information identified in Section L so that the Government can understand the contractual arrangements of the Offeror and its teaming partners. And the contractual arrangement(s) must be in compliance with 13 CFR 125.

Volume II, Tab 6: Subcontracting Plan.

Large business Offerors must submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Individual Contract Plan) as required by FAR 52.219-9. Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis:

Large business Offerors will be evaluated on the basis of whether or not an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Individual Contract Plan) is submitted that adequately addresses each of the required elements of FAR 52.219-9(d) Paragraphs (1) through (11), AFARS 5119.705-4 and AFARS Appendix DD (Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Guide).

Debriefings.

The Offeror must request a debriefing in writing within three (3) days after receipt of notification of contract award in accordance with FAR 15.505 and 15.506. Offerors shall be permitted only one (1) debriefing. All Offerors will receive a letter identifying its strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies along with the rating for each factor. In accordance with DFARS 215-506-70, each Offeror will be afforded the opportunity to submit additional written questions related to the written debriefing within two business days after receiving the postaward debriefing.

Definitions.

Clarifications: Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).

Communications: Communications are exchanges between the Government and offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(b).

Competitive Range: Competitive Range is all the most highly rated proposals (based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria), unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. See FAR 15.306(c).

Deficiency: Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Discussions: Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range. See FAR 15.306(d).

Source Selection Decision Document. Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document of the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative analysis and decision.

Strength: Strength i s an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength: Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness: Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.