Evaluation factors.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Rating Scale - Best possible score is 100.

Technical factors will be rated according to the following scale.

5: Exceptional

4: Very Good

3: Satisfactory

2: Marginal

1: Unsatisfactory

0: Neutral, this rating will be assigned in situations when a contractor is unable to provide past performance information.

(1) Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services; (20%)

TEAM STRUCTURE AND KEY PERSONNEL:

The Team Structure shall highlight the firms of the respected proposed team and identify key personnel (1 person per discipline). Key Personnel must possess the education, qualifications and project experience that will provide the best opportunity for the successful completion of task orders under this contract. Key personnel shall submit resumes (2-page maximum) highlighting their credentials, briefly describe their proposed area of responsibility on task orders, and list relevant project experience in Repair and Alterations Projects (including Substantial Completion date). Key Personnel are expected to be involved in the task orders in an active role leading the task orders. Standard Form 330 (SF 330) shall be submitted to highlight key personnel, their proposed roles in the Contract, the sample projects from their resumes in this capacity, and any overlap between key personnel. Sample projects in the Matrix shall be no less recent than 5 years from the date of Substantial Completion.

The Team Structure will be assessed in the ability to demonstrate:

- The Team’s Structure demonstrates a history of collaboration and working together.

- Key Personnel hold a professional license and/or specialty certification in their respective field (i.e

Registered Architect, Professional Engineer (Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical), Specialized Professionals, Registered Building Consultant, etc.)

- Key personnel shall be involved in the work. Within the resume, a per-project percentage of participation will be listed for each key personnel related to the discipline they support.

- Key Personnel shall have direct experience in highly technical repair and alterations projects.

- Key personnel shall have work experience in supporting Federal Customers.

(2) Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including, where appropriate, experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use of recovered materials; 40%

2a) SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE:(25/40%) Teams shall demonstrate their competency at executing services such as those noted previously in this solicitation. Work samples will be submitted (5-7 total projects, 3 pages each - maximum) in support of the team’s specialized experience and technical competence. A minimum of 3 projects shall fit into the $75,000-$500,000 dollar range, projects submitted should not exceed $5,000,000.

The work samples will be assessed for their ability to demonstrate:

- Teams are adept at solving a variety of issues highlighting how their specialized experience is evident.

- Ability to provide services ranging from pre-design studies through construction completion.

- Specialized experience in architecture and engineering utilizing creative problem solving within existing buildings. Creative problem solving in areas of function, scale, image, engineering, sustainability, maintaining the built context (building or community, including historic preservation), and operational excellence under the constraints of budget, schedule, et al. will be highlighted in the specialized experience.

- Use of emerging or innovative design and knowledge of construction processes execution to realize desired outcomes.

2b) CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INSPECTION CAPABILITY (15/40%): Proposals will be evaluated on experience and capability of the firm and consultants with respect to complete construction management as agent, often referred to as management and inspection services, for projects during the construction phase of the described projects. There will be an evaluation of the proposed quality control during construction, communications, structure of service, experience of those involved, how effort is processed and managed, how costs are controlled and on use of Construction Contract Documents in management during construction.

Teams will be assessed in their ability to demonstrate:

- Experience in successfully providing Construction Administration Services or serving as a

Construction Manager as Advisor on 2 construction projects valued at $2.8 Million or less (construction cost) each within the last 6 years;

- Successful quality control during construction, communications and structure of service is proactive and logical for the program and future projects;

- Successful management process and assignment of inspection services to highly qualified and experienced professionals; and

- Knowledge of controlling costs and applying specifications (Construction Documents) to final deliverables.

(3) Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time; (20%)

MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, DESIGN PHILOSOPHY, PRODUCTION AND QUALITY CONTROL

Teams shall demonstrate their capacity to efficiently accomplish task order work as per the period of performance. The team shall describe the organization and demonstrate its ability to handle, oversee, schedule, staff and execute projects; that may come with inconsistent and unpredictable issuance of task orders.

Teams shall provide a written statement approximately 3-5 pages in length describing the team’s structure, including the team’s design and management philosophy, summary of the internal and external communication plans, style & methods, highlighting the team’s quality controls, and demonstrating the approach for resolving unforeseen conditions; often evident in Repair and Alterations projects.

Evaluation will be made on the team’s:

- Approach to management of personnel, diverse expertise, and project delivery.

- Management strategy for internal and external communication on task orders.

- Approach to Quality Control (QC).

- Proven ability to execute high-quality constructible and biddable design documents on time and on-budget.

- Ability and capacity to respond to emerging situations in a proactive manner, evaluate situations and make midcourse corrections.

- Approach and ability to deliver technically-geared project types to ensure maximum life-cycle efficiency.

(4) Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules; (15%)

PAST PERFORMANCE / ENDORSEMENT OF WORK EXPERIENCE : Teams shall demonstrate successful past performance on example projects of scope and complexity similar to those that will originate from this contract as task orders. This can be from the point of view of the client or professional peers and may include CPARS and PPQ. Demonstrated success of collaborative relationships with consultants will be positively considered. The Government has the right to use corporate knowledge when evaluating this factor.

Note: Positive past performance on completed relevant projects (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) provides that in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be assessed favorably or unfavorably on the agency’s evaluation criteria. In sum, the contractor should be rated as neutral in past performance evaluations.)

Teams shall compile at least 5 but no more than 7 total example projects illustrating repair and alterations.

Projects of similar scale, scope, complexity, and cross-disciplinary efforts where accolade was given to positive past performance by the team or members of the team shall be provided. Submit verified references for each project. Projects listed for Key Personnel are encouraged and will be positively considered. Where a project for key personnel is used, the role of the key personnel on that project shall be stated.

Example projects shall:

- Describe projects in no more than 3 pages per example

- Be supported by graphics or photographs to illustrate the work performed

- Provide a verified reference including the name and contact information for the entity making the supporting statement. Contact information must be current.

- Have a narrative detailing the client or customer, general scope of the project with a list-summary of objectives for the client or customer, salient issues or challenges faced, response to those challenges, and detail how the client’s or customer’s project objectives were met. Specific objectives of program, functional, image, mission, economic, schedule, and operations and maintenance objectives should be highlighted.

(5) Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project; provided, that application of this criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project (5%)*Used in STAGE II only

LOCATION IN AND KNOWLEDGE OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREA : Proposals will be evaluated to consider the team’s location in the general geographical area and knowledge of the locality of the project The evaluation will also consider knowledge of local conditions within the geographical area including tactical, operational, strategic issues for all areas of design, bidding and construction related to the key disciplines.

The architect-engineer firm(s) must demonstrate that at least 35 percent of the architect-engineer contract services (based on the total contract price) will be accomplished within the geographical areas established for the project.

General Services Administration (GSA) Region 5, the Chicagoland area defined as the Chicago-Naperville-Elgin,IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area of which Chicago-Aurora-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division is one of three Division making up the Chicago metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and shall also include the county of Winnebago (to include the City of Rockford)

Ratings

The individual members of the board will review the proposals and, using their professional judgment, assign an adjectival rating for each of the evaluation factors listed above. For each factor, the evaluator will provide a rating based on the guidelines set forth below.

Excellent: The proposal indicates the Contractor is very likely to meet or significantly exceed, to the Government’s benefit, the requirements of the contract. The proposal contains multiple strengths which significantly outweigh any noted weaknesses. The proposal contains no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies. The overall quality of the proposal with respect to the evaluation factor is superior, there is an exceptionally very high probability of success and little to no overall risk to the Government is recognized.

Very Good: The proposal indicates the Contractor is very likely to meet the requirements of the contract and may exceed some of the requirements to the Government’s benefit. The proposal contains strengths which outweigh any noted weaknesses. The proposal contains no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies. The overall quality of the proposal with respect to the evaluation factor is very good, there is a high probability of success and a low level of overall risk to the Government is recognized.

Satisfactory: The proposal indicates the Contractor is likely to meet the requirements of the contract. The proposal’s strengths and weaknesses, if any, are offset by one another. The proposal contains no deficiencies. The overall quality of the proposal with respect to the evaluation factor is acceptable, there is a moderate probability of success and a moderate level of overall risk to the Government is recognized.

Marginal: The proposal indicates the Contractor is unlikely to meet some of the requirements of the contract. Significant proposal revisions are required. The proposal contains significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies, all of which are considered correctable. A “marginal” proposal cannot be awarded unless corrections are made. The overall quality of the proposal with respect to the evaluation factor is fair, there is a limited probability of success and a high level of overall risk to the Government is recognized.

Unsatisfactory: The proposal indicates the Contractor will not meet the requirements of the contract and proposal revisions are unlikely to bring it to an acceptable level. The proposal contains significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies that are not considered capable of correction without extensive changes tantamount to submission of what would amount to an entirely new proposal. An “unacceptable” proposal cannot be awarded. The overall quality of the proposal with respect to the evaluation factor is poor, there is little or no probability of success, and a very high level of overall risk to the Government is recognized.

Neutral: This rating applies to past performance only. A neutral rating will be given to offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available. This rating is neither favorable nor unfavorable, it simply represents that no record of relevant past performance is available for which the Government to make a determination of performance success and overall risk.

Summary of the Evaluation Procedure

1. Definitions:

(a) Clarifications - limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors that may occur when an award without discussions is contemplated. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

(b) Communications - exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after the receipt of proposals, leading to the establishment of the competitive range. These exchanges may be conducted to enhance the Government’s understanding of the proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposals; or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. Such communications shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal. Communications shall not provide an opportunity for the offeror to revise its proposal but (1) may address ambiguities, perceived weaknesses, errors, omissions or mistakes, (2) may address information relating to relevant past performance and (3) shall address adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment.

(c) Deficiency - 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.

(d) Discussions - when negotiations are conducted in a competitive acquisition after the establishment of the competitive range. The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

(e) Significant Weakness - a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(f) Strength - an aspect of the proposal providing a positive benefit or advantage to the government.

(g) Weakness - a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(h) Very Relevant – Prior Experience/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(i) Relevant – Prior Experience/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(j) Somewhat Relevant – Prior experience/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(k) Not Relevant – Prior experience/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2. Rates and Proposals

(a) The Contracting Officer/Contract Specialist will receive, open, separate, and review the proposals and proposed rates for completeness prior to forwarding as appropriate.

3. Technical Evaluation:

(a) The Source Selection Evaluation Board members will read and assess the applicable elements of each proposal as indicated in the solicitation.

(b) The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals based solely on the factors specified in the solicitation. Each member of the Board will evaluate proposals independently and record the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks associated with each factor for each proposal and for the proposal in general. Board members will use the online Google Sheet Titled “Evaluation Worksheet” to record their scores, each board member will be given access to their own sheet, which will populate results to the “Master Score Sheet”. The Master Score sheet will display every board members’ score, ranking, and will provide a cumulative ranking to assist the board in its discussions; the ranking provided by the Master Score Sheet will not be final, the final ranking will be based on the board consensus below.

(c) After individual evaluations are completed, the SSEB will convene as a group to discuss the evaluations of each proposal and reach a consensus on the ratings, rankings and findings for each proposal.

(d) The Board’s findings and the rationale for those findings shall be fully documented in the Source Selection Evaluation Board Report. The report shall include a description of the discussions and evaluation conducted by the board to allow the selection authority to review the considerations upon which the recommendations are based. The report shall contain:

(1) An assessment of each offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements and the associated risk to the Government; based upon the stated evaluation criteria.

(2) The relative strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks supporting each proposal’s evaluation.

(3) A summary or matrix of ratings assigned to each technical proposal along with appropriate supporting narratives based upon the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

(4) A ranking of the firms along with supporting narratives

(5) Questions for discussion, if necessary. These questions will serve as the assessment of those elements that would make the offerors proposal more acceptable.

(e) The Source Selection Evaluation Board shall present its findings, in writing, to the Source Selection Authority.

4. Past Performance Evaluation:

(a) As required by FAR 36.602-1 Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules will be evaluated.

(b) The Government shall consider the information provided by the offerors in their proposal as well as information obtained from references and other sources. A Past Performance Questionnaire will be submitted by references listed by the contractor.

(c) The evaluation may consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. This may include information secured through other various means to include, for example, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the System for Award Management (SAM).

(d) If the offeror has no record of relevant past performance or the information on their past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. This rating shall be characterized as "neutral".

5. Source Selection Evaluation:

(a) The final selection decision shall be made by the agency head or a designated selection authority.

(b) The selection authority shall review the recommendations of the evaluation board and shall, with the advice of appropriate technical and staff representatives, make the final selection. This final selection shall be a listing, in order of preference, of the firms considered most highly qualified to perform the work.

If the firm listed as the most preferred is not the firm recommended as the most highly qualified by the evaluation board, the selection authority shall provide for the contract file a written explanation of the reason for the preference. All firms on the final selection list are considered "selected firms" with which the contracting officer may negotiate in accordance with 36.606.

(c) The selection authority shall not add firms to the selection report. If the firms recommended in the report are not deemed to be qualified or the report is considered inadequate for any reason, the selection authority shall record the reasons and return the report through channels to the evaluation board for appropriate revision.

(d) The board shall be promptly informed of the final selection.

6. Establishing the Shortlist of Firms:

(a) The Evaluation Board will meet to develop a shortlist of up to twelve firms for the first stage of this evaluation. Board Members will use the evaluation factors listed above on the Evaluation Worksheet, except for Evaluation Factor 5. Evaluation Factor 5 will only be applied during the second stage of evaluations. The shortlist will rank firms in the order of the Evaluation Boards preference, based on the consensus scoring. The board shall document it’s reasoning for all firms in the shortlist. If the Board Believes a firm should be removed from consideration, the board will document their reasoning for the firms removal and share the information with the Contracting Officer.

(b) Offerors excluded from the shortlist may request a debriefing as follows:

(i) Pre-award Debriefing: Written request must be received by the Contracting Officer within 3 days after receipt of notice of exclusion from the competition. At the offerors request or at the Government’s discretion, the debriefing may be delayed until after award.

(ii) Post-award Debriefing: Written request must be received by the Contracting Officer within 3 days after the date on which the offeror has received notification of the award.

(iii) If the offeror does not submit a timely request, the offeror need not be given a pre-award or post-award debriefing. Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal.

7. Exchanges (Negotiations) with Offerors after establishment of the Shortlist:

(a) Once firms are shortlisted, they will be asked to provide their applicable rates for the services that will be provided under this IDIQ contract. Negotiations will only be used to negotiate the proposed rates from each firm. The Contracting Officer will work in tandem with the Inspector General to identify fair and reasonable rates for each firm.

(b) If an offeror’s proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the list of awardees, no further revisions to that offeror’s proposal shall be accepted or considered.

(c) Government personnel involved in the acquisition shall not engage in conduct that:

(i) Favors one contractor over another.

(ii) Reveals an offeror’s technical solution, including unique technology, innovative or unique uses of commercial items, or any information that would compromise an offeror’s intellectual property to another offeror.

(iii) Reveals an offeror’s price without the offeror’s permission. The Government can inform the offeror that its price is considered by the Government to be too high, or too low, and reveal the analysis supporting this conclusion. The Government may also indicate to all offerors the cost or price that the Government’s price analysis, market research, and other reviews have identified as reasonable.

(iv) Reveals the names of individuals providing reference information about the offeror’s past performance.

(v) Knowingly furnishes source selection information in violation of FAR 3.104 and 41 U. S. C.

423(h)(1)(2).

8. Proposal Revisions:

(a) During discussions, the Contracting Officer may request or allow rate revisions to meet the Inspector General’s rate standards. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final rate proposal.

(b) The Contracting Officer shall establish a common cut-off date for receipt of final revisions. The Contracting Officer shall advise the offerors that final revisions must be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

11. Source Selection Decision:

(a) Per FAR 36.602-4The final selection decision shall be made by the agency head or a designated selection authority.

(b) The selection authority shall review the recommendations of the evaluation board and shall, with the advice of appropriate technical and staff representatives, make the final selection. This final selection shall be a listing, in order of preference, of the firms considered most highly qualified to perform the work.

If the firm listed as the most preferred is not the firm recommended as the most highly qualified by the evaluation board, the selection authority shall provide for the contract file a written explanation of the reason for the preference. All firms on the final selection list are considered "selected firms" with which the contracting officer may negotiate in accordance with 36.606.

(c) The selection authority shall not add firms to the selection report. If the firms recommended in the report are not deemed to be qualified or the report is considered inadequate for any reason, the selection authority shall record the reasons and return the report through channels to the evaluation board for appropriate revision.

(d) The board shall be promptly informed of the final selection.