Evaluation Factors R2-250008-Repair SOR Waterline.pdf
PDF 134 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SOR Waterline Repair
- Solicitation number
- FA940126R0023
About this file
This document outlines the evaluation criteria and basis for award for a federal design-build contract (MHMV: 250008) for the repair of the SOR waterline, tanks, and pumps project. Award will be made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance.
The evaluation process follows three sequential steps: (1) technical proposal evaluation, (2) past performance evaluation, and (3) price ranking. Factor 1 Technical requires submission of a five-page Project Approach plan addressing the prime contractor's organization, design team qualifications, management approach, demolition and construction sequencing strategy, outage planning, and on-site design-build management interaction with government and subcontractors. Proposals must provide technical solutions rather than restating requirements and must achieve a "Pass" rating based on meeting solicitation requirements. Factor 2 Past Performance requires submission of a minimum of three construction projects for the prime contractor and three design projects for the designer of record, each approximately 70 percent complete within the last three years. Submissions limited to ten pages must demonstrate recency and relevancy, including project title, location, scope, costs, schedules, and unaffiliated points of contact. Offerors must demonstrate prior experience with similar water utility system projects involving tanks and pumping systems, as well as preferably working for the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) and being on their Approved Contractor List. A "Pass" rating requires reasonable expectation of successful performance; neutral ratings (considered "Pass") apply to offerors without relevant past performance records. Factor 3 Price evaluates total evaluated price through competitive quotations using RFO 12.204 procedures to establish price reasonableness based on what a prudent person would pay in competitive business.
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
MHMV: 250008
Project Name: Repair SOR Waterline, Tanks, and Pumps
Basis for Award
Award will be made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror, with an acceptable past performance rating.
Step 1: Evaluate the Technical Proposal Step 2: Evaluate Past Performance Step 3: Rank by price
Evaluation Criteria
• Factor 1 Technical
• Factor 2 Past Performance
• Factor 3 Price
Factor 1 Technical
A. Provide a Project Approach plan that describes the offeror’s organization and intended management approach to execute this water utility project. Limit the information to five (5) pages. Address the points below at a minimum:
a) Prime Contractor: Describe the organization, responsibilities, and lines of authority including those of the Quality Control (QC) and Site Safety & Health Officer (SSHO) personnel established to complete the design and construction of this project. Describe your resources available to support this project during both the design and construction phases concurrently with other projects or ongoing work. Describe how your firm’s qualifications and resources are suitable for undertaking this project.
b) Design Team: Describe the organization, responsibilities, and lines of authority established to complete the design. Describe the responsibility of the designers during the construction phase. State why your design firm(s) is especially qualified to undertake this project.
c) Describe your approach to managing the design and construction of the demolition of the existing waterline utility system infrastructure, disconnecting of the existing waterline from the service and/or facility, and connecting the new waterline, water tanks, and pumping station. Discuss outage planning and any required phasing of the new waterline utility system infrastructure while adhering to the appropriate Codes, References, and Standards in the SOW.
d) On-site Design-Build Management: 1) Describe how the onsite design-build management team organization and Government will interact during design and construction, including the role of key subcontractors during design. 2) Identify elements of quality control and project safety, and 3) Discuss your approach to RFls, submittals and Modification process with Kirtland AFB on this project.
In order to receive a “pass” for this factor the offeror must satisfy the evaluation standards listed in “Factor 1 Technical”. Offerors shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but, rather, provide technical solutions to address how the Offerors intends to meet the requirements in the SOW with their technical approach.
Basis for Pass/Fail on Technical Proposal:
Pass: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation
Fail: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.
Factor 2 Past Performance
A. The offeror shall submit examples of recent and relevant construction projects which best illustrate the experience of the construction contractor on relevant projects of similar scope, type, complexity, size and magnitude.
• A minimum of three (3) Construction projects is to be submitted for the Prime
Contractor.
• A minimum of three (3) Design projects is to be submitted for the design firm.
- Limit the information for Factor 2 to ten (10) pages or less. All narratives must contain sufficient detail to demonstrate recency and relevancy.
- If the offeror submission exceeds the project limitation of three (3) projects as the Prime, only the first 3 will be evaluated. Similarly, if the offeror submission exceeds three (3) projects for the DOR, only the first 3 will be evaluated.
B. All projects submitted shall be approximately 70% construction complete AND within the last 3 years from the closing date of the solicitation.
C. Each Project narrative should include the following information to better assess the recency (within the last 3 years) and relevancy (approximately 70% complete Construction and Design projects).
o Project Title and location o Detailed scope of the project
Narratives for each project should include a brief overview of the project and provide specifics discussing major features of the project and each project’s relevance and similarities to this project. The role and work assigned to any sub-contractors and/or personnel noted in the narrative shall be explained.
o Original contract award and final cost o Original contract finish date and actual finish date o Points of contact (POC) familiar with design and construction performance and not affiliated with the proposer.
D. Offerors must demonstrate the following:
a) Experience between Designer of Record and Prime working together on similar scope, type, complexity, size and magnitude projects.
b) Experience with projects that involve design of water line utility systems with tanks and pumping systems on similar scope, type, complexity, size and magnitude projects.
c) Prior experience working for the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) and preferably on the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority (ABCWUA) Approved Contractor List.
In order to receive a “pass” for this factor the offeror must satisfy the evaluation standards listed in “Factor 2 Past Performance”.
Basis for Pass/Fail on Past Performance Evaluation:
Pass: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.
Fail: 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.
Neutral: 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 evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a “Neutral” rating, which is considered “Pass.”
Factor 3 Price
a. Price: The quotations will be ranked according to their total evaluated price (TEP) by adding the offeror's quote total pricing. The offeror's price will be evaluated by using the procedures in RFO 12.204 in order to determine price reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through competitive quotations as described in RFO 12.204.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .