EVALUATION FACTORS.docx

EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most accurate and favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposals.

The Technical Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance, as follows:

Factor F = PASS/FAIL If the Offeror FAILS, the proposal is not considered.

Factor G = PASS/FAIL If the Offeror FAILS, the proposal is not considered.

Factor A is more important than Factor C Factor C is more important than Factor D Factor D is more important than Factors B.

Factor B is more important than Factors E.

When combined, Factors A-E are significantly more important than Factor H.

Factors A-G are more important than Factor I. Factor I is more important than Factor J.

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

Evaluation of offers will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and DOD Source Selection Procedures.

The evaluation process will be conducted as follows:

VOLUME I: RFP REQUIREMENTS

The Government will review all proposals submitted to ensure Offerors have completed and signed the SF 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, that Offeror completed Section K Provisions 52.204-8 and 252.204-7007 as applicable, and that Offerors are registered in SAM at the time an offer is submitted.

RFP Requirements will be reviewed and evaluated based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures standards for Acceptable / Unacceptable ratings, as follows:

Acceptable proposals will be those whose SF 33 is completed / signed on Page 1, blocks 12-18, and where Section K Provisions 52.204-8 and 252.204-7007 have been completed as applicable, and offeror is registered in SAM at the time an offer is submitted in accordance with FAR provision 52.204-7 System for Award Management.

VOLUME II: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Technical factors will be evaluated by how well the proposal meets the Government requirement and what level of quality is evaluated by the Offeror’s proposal and technical approach.

Technical factors A-G will be evaluated separately based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures standards for combined technical acceptability and risk ratings, as follows:

Blue

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

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.

Green

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

Yellow

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

unawardable.

All technical factors will be evaluated per the criteria identified below.

Factor A: Design Criteria (Narrative)

The Government will evaluate the following subfactors:

A1: Describe the processes used to design a replacement electrical system for a critical facility.

A2: Discuss how the contractor will address the 20%(minimum) increase in capacity.

A2a:Discuss how the contractor will address separating the two services since they come from a common utility source.

A3: Discuss how the contractor will address the separation of distribution equipment based on systems (i.e. Life Safety, HVAC, IT, security, laboratories, clean rooms, other).

A4: Discuss how the contractor will address the increase in UPS capacity.

A5: Discuss how the contractor will address the increase in generator capacity.

A6: Discuss how the contractor will address the replacement of distribution and branch level equipment.

A7: Discuss how the contractor will address installing power monitoring and metering in the replacement system.

A8: Discuss how the contractor will address designing the replacement system with an operational system in place.

A9: Discuss how the contractor will address the design with limited physical space.

Proposals demonstrating a higher understanding on how to satisfy the Government’s requirement, will receive higher ratings. All subfactors are necessary for the evaluation of proposals. All subfactors are equally important.

Factor B – Design Schedule

The Government will evaluate the following subfactors:

B1: Proposes schedule in number of calendar days.

B2: Provides break down of major milestones and timelines for the design work including: data collection/analysis, schematic design, construction drawings, review cycles, project schedule development, and estimate development.

Proposals demonstrating a higher understanding on how to satisfy the Government’s requirement, will receive higher ratings. All subfactors are necessary for the evaluation of proposals. All subfactors are equally important.

Factor C – Project Implementation Plan

The Government will evaluate the following subfactors:

C1:Describe the processes used to implement a replacement electrical system for a critical facility within an operating facility.

C2:Define and describe the major milestones/phases for the entire project.

C3:Proposes minimizing the number of power interruptions to the existing facility.

C4: Describe how the engineering and electrical contractor will work together to be successful, during the planning and the implementation C5: Describe the size of work crew needed for a project of this magnitude.

C6: Describes the type of staff needed to complete this project.

C7: States equipment to be used and how and where they will stage the materials for this project.

C8: Addresses the safety requirements/concerns of the contract.

Proposals demonstrating a higher understanding on how to satisfy the Government’s requirement, will receive higher ratings. All subfactors are necessary for the evaluation of proposals. All subfactors are equally important.

Factor D – Project Schedule

The Government will evaluate the following subfactors:

D1: Proposes schedule in number of calendar days.

D2: Provides break down of major milestones/phases for significant portions of work related to the Implementation Plan.

D3: Proposes major "tie-ins" where power interruptions are possible.

Proposals demonstrating a higher understanding on how to satisfy the Government’s requirement, will receive higher ratings. All subfactors are necessary for the evaluation of proposals. All subfactors are equally important.

Factor E – Project Budget

The Government will evaluate the following subfactors:

E1: Proposes a Class 4 estimate for the entire electrical replacement.

E2:Provides major project milestones/phases related to the project schedule.

E3:Provides break down of major project milestones/phases with major equipment.

E4:Provides construction costs associated with installation of the system and major equipment.

E5:Provides construction management costs for the entire project.

Proposals demonstrating a higher understanding on how to satisfy the Government’s requirement, will receive higher ratings. All subfactors are necessary for the evaluation of proposals. All subfactors are equally important.

Factor F – Qualifications

The Government will evaluate the following subfactors:

F1:Shows proof of valid Registered Professional Electrical Engineer(s) on staff.

F2:Shows proof of State of California Contractors State License Board with a valid C10 Electrical Contractor for any subcontractors required.

Proposals that do not provide proof for both subfactors will be evaluated as a Fail, and the proposal will not be considered.

Proposals that provide proof for both subfactors will be evaluated as a Pass, and the proposal will be considered.

Factor G – Architect-Engineer Qualifications

The Government will evaluate the following subfactors:

G1: Submitted a completed electronic copy of SF 330 Part I G2: Included the firm's DUNS number in SF 330, Part I, Section H.

G3: Submitted a completed electronic copy of SF 330 Part II for the firm and all consultants.

Proposals that do not submit a completed SF 330 Part I and Part II for the firm and all consultants, to include the firm's DUNS number in SF 330, Part I, Section H will be evaluated as a Fail, and the proposal will not be considered.

Proposals that submit a completed SF 330 Part I and Part II for the firm and all consultants, to include the firm's DUNS number in SF 330, Part I, Section H will be evaluated will be evaluated as a Pass, and the proposal will be considered.

Factor H – Past Experience

The Government will evaluate the following subfactors:

H1:Discusses past projects similar to this effort (minimum of two, preferably greater than three).

H2:Discusses the outcome of the projects with customer feedback.

H3:Discusses some of the lessons learned from prior projects.

Proposals demonstrating a higher understanding on how to satisfy the Government’s requirement, will receive higher ratings. All subfactors are necessary for the evaluation of proposals. All subfactors are equally important.

VOLUME III: PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor I: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate each work sample provided for Factor, to further validate past performance and assess confidence in the Offeror’s future capability to provide services.

The Government may request information regarding overall satisfaction with the Offeror’s performance, to include, but not necessarily limited to, compliance with schedule, budget constraints, and trends in Contractors’ performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s work samples to determine recency:

1) Work samples completed since 2017 will be determined recent.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s work samples to determine relevancy:

1) Work samples of a similar to the PWS will be determined relevant.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror shall be determined to have Unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

Past Performance will be reviewed and evaluated based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures standards for Acceptable / Unacceptable past performance ratings, as follows:

Offeror’s performance record is Unknown. (See note below.)

expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have Unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

The Government will also consider past performance information obtained from other than the sources provided, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), and/or other DOD contracts available in the Electronic Document Access (EDA) Library.

Relevance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

The ratings below will be used for evaluation. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and 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 a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

VOLUME IV: PRICE

Factor J, Price

Before making award, the Contracting Officer (CO) must determine that the Offeror’s prices are fair and reasonable.

It is anticipated that adequate price competition will support a determination that prices are fair and reasonable, however Offerors may be required to submit additional pricing information and other than certified cost data for the CO to adequately determine price reasonableness.

Evaluation of Price includes consideration of whether the Offeror’s prices and cost proposal are complete and reasonable, defined as follows:

Completeness – The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the proposed pricing to determine that all price/cost data have been submitted in compliance with the solicitation and PWS. Pricing data provided should be consistent with the elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Offeror must provide all price/cost data that is necessary to support the offer.

Reasonableness – The Government will evaluate the proposed pricing to determine whether the Offeror’s prices are reasonable to the scope of the solicitation, and PWS. An Offeror who submits unrealistically low pricing may be excluded from award as this indicates that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or that the Offeror has purposefully submitted an unrealistically low proposal to “buy in” to the contract. In accordance with provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, plans indicating unrealistically low professional employee compensation may be assessed adversely. All offers with separately priced line items or subline items will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. Offers may be rejected if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.