Section_M.docx
DOCX document 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA2835-18-R-0002
About this file
Section J Attachment 4 - Evaluation Factors for Award
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q_and_A.pdf | ||
| HAFB_B1102_Pre-Final_RFP_Jan-11-2018.pdf | ||
| Advantor_BNJ_redacted.pdf | ||
| Proposal_Submission_Checklist_-_Phase_1_Offeror.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Wage_Determination_9_Feb_2018.pdf | ||
| Section_L.docx | DOCX document | |
| FA2835-18-R-0002_SF_1442.docx | DOCX document |
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
| MXRD200010 | Section M |
| Repair (Sustain) AFLCMC Acq Fac, B1102 | 5 February 2018 |
Hanscom Air Force Base, MA
EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS
| 1.0 | BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD |
| 2.0 | PHASE 1 EVALUATION FACTORS |
| 2.1 | FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY |
| 2.2 | FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE |
| 2.3 | FACTOR 3 – ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH |
| 3.0 | PHASE 2 EVALUATION FACTORS |
| 3.1 | FACTOR 1 – COMPLIANCE WITH STATEMENT OF WORK |
| 3.2 | FACTOR 2 – PRICE |
1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD
As identified and explained in Section L, this solicitation is being conducted in accordance with FAR 36.3 – Two Phase Design-Build Selection Procedures. All Phase 1 proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors listed in Paragraph 2, Phase 1 Evaluation Factors. The Government may conduct interchanges with some, none, or all Phase 1 Offerors at its discretion. The Government reserves the right to select the most highly qualified Phase 1 Offers based on the initial Phase 1 proposal, as received, without discussions. No more than five (5) of the most highly qualified Phase 1 Offerors will be selected and notified to submit Phase 2 Proposals.
Phase 2 evaluation and contract award will be evaluated in accordance with Paragraph 3, Phase 2 Evaluation Factors. Phase 2 is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 3 October 2017. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government may conduct interchanges with some, none, or all Phase 2 Offerors at its discretion. The Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial Phase 2 proposal, as received, without discussions.
2.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION FACTORS
Phase 1 will determine the most highly qualified offerors to be selected to submit proposals for Phase 2. All factors will be considered, with no one factor being significantly more important than another. The Government will determine which offerors are the most highly qualified based on the following evaluation factors:
| 2.1 | FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY |
| 2.1.1 | The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor and design firms in design, construction or design-build, as relevant to their role on this project. Recent experience includes projects well underway (designed and at least 50% completed) or those completed and turned over within 5 years of the RFP issue date. If the design will be accomplished in-house, rather than by subcontract, then the design element of specialized experience will still be evaluated, realizing that the work is being done in-house. Examples of relevancy include projects of similar size, type, scope of work, complexity, and location. Experience identified in the Specialized Experience Forms (Section L Attachments 1 & 2) will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor. |
The agency will give more consideration to the following:
| a) | A higher number of relevant projects for both the Prime contractor and the Design Firm(s), up to a maximum of five each. |
| b) | Projects showing experience with design-build construction. |
| c) | Projects Designed for and Constructed on Military installations. |
| d) | Projects with a value of $15 million or greater. |
| e) | Fully completed projects, rather than substantially complete projects. |
| f) | Projects completed within 5 years of this solicitation date. |
| g) | Projects that demonstrate experience managing multiple large activities simultaneously on a secure and confined site. |
| h) | Projects that demonstrate experience of the team members commensurate with their proposed role on this project. |
| 2.1.2 | The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. |
| 2.1.3 | To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror and its proposed design firm(s) shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience. A firm will not receive credit under this factor for the relevant experience of key personnel proposed for this project. |
| 2.1.4 | Previous design-build experience is not necessary for an acceptable rating. The Government may consider previous recent teaming experience among the team members as value added, even if on different type design and/or construction projects than this project. The more relevant the experience, the more credit will be given. |
| 2.1.5 | The Government will assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract. The past performance relevancy rating are described below: |
| Adjectival Rating | |
| Description |
| Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Not Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| 2.2 | FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE |
| 2.2.1 | The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the D-B team’s recent (well underway or turned over no longer than five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. See explanation of “well underway” and relevancy under paragraph 2.1.1. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal and/or to review other recent projects rated in CPARS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact offeror-furnished references, or to review personal knowledge. |
| 2.2.2 | The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of confirming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M Manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The Government places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone databases, offeror-furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below. |
| Adjectival Rating | |
| Description |
| 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. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance confidence assessment will be considered “Neutral Confidence”. |
| 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. |
| 2.3 | FACTOR 3 - ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL APPROACH |
| 2.3.1 | The government will evaluate the Offeror’s organization and technical approach. The government will evaluate the firm’s understanding of D-B (and the requirements described in the Section J Attachment 1 – Statement of Work) and capability to execute the project. Specific evaluation considerations are listed below. |
| 2.3.2 | Subfactor 1 - Offeror’s Understanding: The government will evaluate the offeror's understanding for clarity and conciseness of the challenges and risks of the proposed design and construction as well as the ability to synthesize UFCs 1-200-01, 1-200-02, 3-600-014-010-01, and UFGS 23 05 93 as they apply to this design and renovation effort. |
| 2.3.3 | Subfactor 2 - Organization: The government will evaluate the offeror’s organizational resources and arrangement to ensure that the contractor has identified and organized resources to perform the work with clear lines of authority and defined delegation of authority. The government will also evaluate that the key personnel organizational chart includes all the required information and is consistent with the corporate organizational chart, matrix of responsibilities and list of key personnel. |
| 2.3.4 | Subfactor 3 - Technical Approach for Design and Construction: The Government will evaluate the technical approach to design and renovation, demonstrating clear and concise proposed phasing plans for design, construction and demolition. |
| 2.3.5 | Subfactor 4 - Collaborative Approach for Design-Build: The government will evaluate the integration of the design and construction firms and the staff during design and construction. The constructor must be actively involved in the design process, not just leaving it up to the designer. The offeror must have an effective configuration management system to control and track revisions to the designs. The government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the design process and the roles of the designers of record and the government reviewers. The government will evaluate the role of the designer in maintaining design integrity throughout the process, including its key roles during construction. Additional consideration will be given to a team that includes as many subcontractors as possible (e.g., the key subs for electrical and mechanical, the fire protection subcontractor, fabricators, etc.) during design development, prior to release of the applicable design packages for construction, so that systems and trade coordination can reduce interferences, increase constructability and speed up construction operations. |
| 2.3.6 | Subfactor 5 - Subcontractor Approach and Management: The government will evaluate the general contractor’s ability to develop and maintain strong subcontractor and small business relationships. The government will evaluate the general contractor’s subcontractor management model and processes. |
| 2.3.7 | Subfactor 6 - Planning and Scheduling: The government will evaluate the offeror’s scheduling capabilities to manage an integrated fast track design-build schedule as it relates to design and renovation of an administrative office building. |
| 2.3.8 | Subfactor 7 - Quality Control: The government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for both design and construction. The government places value upon continued participation by the designers of record during the construction quality control process. The government will evaluate the adequacy of the staffing plan to cover all required tasks and responsibilities. |
| 2.3.9 | Subfactor 8 - Safety: The government will evaluate the offeror’s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required safety processes for construction. |
| 2.3.10 | Subfactor 9 - Key Project Personnel Capabilities and Experience: The government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed minimum qualifications necessary, which includes previous satisfactory experience in similar type work, to manage, control and perform the design, and to perform construction. Performance of key personnel proposed for this project may be taken into account when it comes to the attention of the government. The Offeror demonstrates that it has the necessary structure and experienced, qualified personnel within its organization to effectively manage, control, administer and execute the integrated design and construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts. This shall be achievable with other projected on-going work. Additional consideration will be given to previous design- build experience. The Government will evaluate whether designers of record are registered (a requirement), experienced and qualified, and that permit preparers are qualified in the jurisdiction (a requirement). |
| 2.3.11 | The Government will assess and rate the offeror’s Organization and Technical Approach based on the subfactors identified. All subfactors will be evaluated individually and then rolled up into a single factor rating. The Organization and Technical Approach ratings are described below: |
| Adjectival Rating | |
| Description |
| Excellent |
| Proposal satisfies all subfactor requirements and demonstrates an exceptional organizational and technical approach. Proposal contains numerous strengths and exceptional features that far outweigh any weaknesses. The risk of unacceptable performance to the Government is low. |
| Acceptable |
| Proposal meets all subfactor requirements and indicates a satisfactory organizational and technical approach. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or have little or no impact on contract performance. The risk of unacceptable performance to the Government is low to moderate. |
| Unacceptable |
| Proposal does not meet the subfactor requirements. The proposal contains significant weaknesses and one or more deficiencies. There is no reasonable expectation that acceptable performance would be achieved. The risk of unacceptable performance to the Government is high. |
DEFINITIONS USED IN ASSESSING EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS
Strength: A strength is an aspect of the proposal that has merit or exceeds stated requirements and evaluation standards of the solicitation in a way that is beneficial to the Government for the purpose of this particular acquisition.
Weakness: A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.
Significant Weakness: A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A combination of weaknesses in a single factor can equate to a significant weakness.
Deficiency: A 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 performance to an unacceptable level.
3.0 PHASE 2 EVALUATION FACTORS
The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate phase 2 proposals. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors. Non-price factors are approximately equal to cost or price.
Evaluation of offers will be conducted as follows:
1. Responsive offers will be evaluated for technical acceptability.
2. Technically acceptable offers will be ranked according to price.
3. Award will be made to the lowest price technically acceptable offer.
| 3.1 | FACTOR 1 – COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATEMENT OF WORK |
| 3.1.1 | Summary Schedule. Technical acceptability will be evaluated based on Offeror demonstrating understanding and compliance with the Statement of Work (SOW) through the Summary Schedule. |
| 3.1.2 | The ratings system used for determining technical acceptability will be as follows: |
| Adjectival Rating | |
| Description |
| Acceptable |
| Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. |
| Unacceptable |
| Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation. |
3.2 FACTOR 2 – PRICE
Next, only proposals that are evaluated as technically acceptable will be evaluated for price. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Award will be made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 to the contractor who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.
The lowest price offer will be determined and evaluated IAW the language in FAR 52.217-4 Evaluation of Options Exercised at Time of Contract Award. The Government will evaluate the total price for the basic requirement together with any option exercised at the time of award.
Page
File details come from the government source that posted it.