Attachment 6 Rev. 1 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award___ 9 pgs_ Dated 26 May 2021.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1. Number of Contracts. The Government intends to award up to five (5) contracts for this

Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) program. The Government reserves the right to award more or less contracts, or none, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it to be in the Government’s best interest based on one or more of the following considerations:

expected volume of work over the ordering period of the contracts, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of technically acceptable proposals following completion of the evaluation of the proposals received. All contracts awarded as a result of this solicitation will be for a single five (5) year ordering period program and two (2) – one (1) year option periods.

Each offeror selected for a MACC contract will be awarded a Task Order (TO) for the pre-performance conference in the amount of the guaranteed minimum. In addition, the Government intends to issue a TO for the seed project to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror.

M.1.2. Basis for Contract Award

M.1.2.1. This is a competitive Lowest Priced Technical Acceptable source selection. To be considered for award, an offeror must: a) meet the Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, and conform to all solicitation terms and conditions in compliance with Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors or Respondents; b) receive “Acceptable” Technical rating; c) have a complete, fair and reasonable price; and d) be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1.

M.1.2.2. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

M.1.2.3. The Government seeks to award to the offerors whose proposal meets or exceeds the requirements of this solicitation, and is considered the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror. In this source selection, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make a selection to award without discussions or will direct establishment of a competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions.

M.1.3. Discussions and Evaluations.

M.1.3.1. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the

Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contracts without discussions.

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in

Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Technical or Price proposal.

Exchanges conducted with regards to resolving minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the CO reserve the right to award a contract(s) without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

M.1.3.2. Proposals containing information or data, which the offerors do not want disclosed to the public or to other contractors or used by the Government for any purpose other than the evaluation of this proposal will be clearly mark. Data so marked shall not be disclosed outside the

Government without the written permission of the offeror except under the conditions provided I the offerors’ restrictions. Since it is anticipated that there will be group discussions concerning aspects of offerors’ proposals, conferees will advice other members when proprietary data is being discussed. Additionally, by submitting a proposal, you here by give consent to government contractors, for evaluation purposes, to examine the information provided.

M.1.3.3. The Government’s evaluation process will be as follows:

Step 1: Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

a) Seed Project Price. The evaluated price shall be the total price proposed by the Offeror for seed project in Section B. The Offeror's total price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price

(FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)). The evaluation will be accomplished to IAW M.3, Factor 1, and then proposals will be ranked by the TEP.

Step 2: Conduct technical evaluations beginning with the lowest TEP. The seed project will be awarded to the offeror whose proposal is deemed technically acceptable with the lowest total evaluate price. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Only those

Offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

a) Technical. The technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical acceptability of up to 5 proposals. The evaluation will be accomplished IAW M.4, Factor 2.

M.1.3.4. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If the Government holds discussions, at the direction of the SSA, the CO will establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c)(1) procedures and this solicitation. IAW FAR

15.306(c)(2), the Government also reserve the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the technically acceptable proposals. If the CO eliminates a proposal from the competitive range, the proposal will not be considered for award. Written notice of a CO’s decision to eliminate will be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1).

M.1.3.5. If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final

Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M.1.4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exception unacceptable.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Award(s) will be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1 – Seed Project Price

Factor 2 – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Management and Technical Approach

Subfactor 2 – MACC Management

Subfactor 3 – Quality Management Program (QMP)

Subfactor 4 – Past Experience

M.3. FACTOR 1 – PRICE

The offeror’s price proposal for the design-build seed project will be evaluated for completeness and price reasonableness, then ranked from lowest to highest. Each offeror’s Total Evaluated

Price (TEP) will be calculated by adding the construction line item prices proposed on Project

Bid Schedule (Attachment 4). Only EURO currency offers will be accepted.

M.3.1. Completeness. The Government will evaluate the Price Volume for completeness to ensure the inclusion and submission of the price data and other contracting consideration information required in Section L.4. Note that incomplete proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement.

M.3.2. Price Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the price data submitted per

Section L.4, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine the price reasonableness. Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated. The offerors whose TEP is determined to be unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 will not be considered for award.

M.3.2.1. The Government will evaluate the total price proposed for the design-build seed project price proposal to determine whether prices are complete and reasonable for the work to be performed.

M.3.2.2. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.4. FACTOR 2 – Technical

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals, assigning a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated utilizing the four (4) technical subfactors, as they apply to the

Seed Project SOW (Attachment 3), General Requirements & Provisions (Attachment 1) and

Special Contract Requirements (Attachment 2). The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a reasonable and complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in the Section L.5 of this solicitation. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal “Unacceptable” and, therefore, un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically “Acceptable”, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

TABLE C-1. TECHNICAL RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.4.1. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M.4.1.1. Subfactor 1: Management and Technical Approach of Seed Project

This subfactor assesses the Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project: This section will assesses the Offeror’s technical approach to accomplish all work elements of the design-build seed project, Project No. QUUG 06-1003 Renovate Meeting Hall, B105. The Government intends to award the Seed Project as a task order based on funds availability. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the corresponding

“Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 1: Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.5.3.1.1. Provide a complete 35% concept design across all disciplines IAW Seed Project SOW for the

Project No. QUUG 06-1003 Renovate Meeting Hall, B105. The following essential elements are the minimum requirements for the concept design:

M.4.1.1. The standard is met when the proposed concept design across all disciplines demonstrates the

Offeror’s technical capability for successfully executing and completing the seed project IAW the Seed Project

SOW and the proposal provides:

Subfactor 1: Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project

a) Basis of Design. Provide a narrative summarizing, explaining and documenting the concept design results IAW Seed Project SOW to address, in detail, the offeror’s technical approach, at a minimum, to the following components:

architectural, structural, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, communication, fire protection, assumptions made, and construction phasing.

b) Concept Design Drawings. Provide the concept design drawings describing a concept design IAW

Seed Project SOW to include, at a minimum, the following components: architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, communication, fire protection, construction phasing, and calculations.

c) Bill of Quantities Calculation. Provide an in-depth bill of quantities calculation consisting of position number, description, quantity, and supporting rationale for each line item. The line items shall be based on the blank Cost Estimate Form included in the seed project package documents.

d) Memorandum of Agreements. Offeror must include in his proposal a memorandum of agreement between the Offeror and each key subcontractor in relation to the seed contract, if any, establishing that the key subcontractor will perform the corresponding work activity if the contract is awarded to the Offeror.

e) Classification Certificates. Offeror must include in proposal Current Classification Certificates held by the Offeror and/or key subcontractors, if any, and issued by the Spanish "Registro Oficial de

Licitadores y Empresas Clasificadas del Estado" of the "Ministerio de Hacienda y Administraciones

Públicas" in relation to the seed contract. The certificate holder must execute the activities related to the certificate.

a) Clearly and logically detailed narrative summarizing, explaining and documenting the concept design IAW Seed Project SOW, addressing sound approach, at a minimum, for the following components: architectural, structural, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, communication, fire protection, assumptions made, and construction phasing.

b) Effective and accurate concept design drawings depicting the concept design to include, at a minimum, the following components: architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, communication, fire protection, construction phasing, and calculations.

c) Complete and accurate in-depth bill of quantities calculation consisting of position number, description, quantity, and supporting rationale for each line item.

d) The memorandum of agreement has to be signed by the Offeror and the key subcontractor and shall be original or a notarized copy. If agreement is not signed by both parties, it will be deemed not acceptable.

e) This requirement is met when the Offeror and/or key subcontractors submit the Classification

Certificates for all the activities requested in the seed project and demonstrate the capability of obtaining all certificates (including through subcontracts) in relation to the seed contract.

This requirement is met when the Offeror’s concept design across all disciplines demonstrates the Offeror’s technical capability for successfully executing and completing the seed project in accordance with the Seed Project SOW and the proposal meets all requirements in the above right hand column.

M.4.1.1.2. Subfactor 2 -- MACC Management: The Offeror shall include in their proposal the description of the Offeror’s management of all involved parties during the life of the MACC program performance period (Prime Contractor, Architect-Engineer Design Firm, and key subcontractors, etc). Describe the proposed management structure of the team, describing how the design and/or construction process will be managed and the authorities and/or the delegations of authority within the team. The Offeror should utilize this section to describe best practices of their company. Key elements must include, but are not limited to:

a. Available headquarter management resources assigned to the contract.

b. Organizational Chart: The Offeror must include in the proposal the organizational chart identifying roles and responsibilities of the key personnel, teaming partners, and key subcontractors, if any.

c. Construction team involvement during the design phase (design-build).

d. Design team involvement during construction phases (design-build).

e. Problem avoidance and mitigation techniques/strategy.

f. Construction safety best practices.

g. Classification Certificates: Offeror must include in proposal a statement of concurrence and understanding to certificate requirements as specified in Attachment 9 – List of

Possible Certifications. Classification Certificates held by the Offeror and/or key subcontractors, if any, Certificates are issued by the Spanish "Registro Oficial de

Licitadores y Empresas Clasificadas del Estado" of the "Ministerio de Hacienda y

Administraciones Públicas."

This requirement is met when the Offeror submits all information required and demonstrates a clear concise Management Approach that will allow the accomplishment of this design-build and/or construction projects and is in compliance with all requirements specified in the MACC General Provisions and Conditions.

M.4.1.1.3. Subfactor 3 -- Quality Management Plan (QMP): This section will assesses the

Offeror’s Quality Control (QC) procedures, processes and methods that assure high quality workmanship during the life of the MACC program performance period. Upon contract award, this QMP will be incorporated into the basic contract to be a part of the contract requirements.

The evaluation will address the Offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the corresponding “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 3: Quality Management Plan (QMP)

L.5.3.3.1. Provide a detailed QMP to include, as a minimum, the following components to cover all activities, both onsite and offsite, work by subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers, and purchasing agents:

a) Complete QC organizational chart with a supporting narrative identifying precise lines of authority and responsibilities, including names, qualifications and duties of each person assigned to a QC function.

b) Procedures for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals.

c) Control, verification and acceptance testing procedures for each specific test to include the test name, specification paragraph requiring test, feature of work to be tested, test frequency and person responsible for each test.

d) Procedures for tracking design and construction deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action. Establish verification procedures that identified deficiencies have been corrected.

e) Reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats.

M.4.1.1.3. The standard is met when the proposed

QMP approach assures high quality workmanship by providing effective Quality Control (QC) procedures, processes and methods for the life of the MACC program performance period and the proposal provides:

a) A clear QC organizational structure that identifies precise lines of authorities and responsibilities, including names, qualifications and duties of each person assigned to a QC function.

b) Viable procedures for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals.

c) Sufficiently addresses control, verification and acceptance testing procedures for each specific test to include the test name, specification paragraph requiring test, feature of work to be tested, test frequency and person responsible for each test.

d) Effective procedures for tracking design and construction deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action and verification methods that identified deficiencies have been corrected.

e) Sound reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats.

This requirement is met when the Offeror’s QMP approach assures high quality workmanship by providing effective Quality Control (QC) procedures, processes and methods for the life of the MACC program performance period and the proposal provides all requirements in the above right-hand column.

M.4.1.2. Subfactor 4: Past Experience Offerors are required to demonstrate past experience of projects involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope (broad range of repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and minor construction projects on various real property);

magnitude (expected value of task orders issued under this MACC is approximately €250,000 to €5 million or equivalent in dollars); and complexity (multiple functions/trades, including design-build, performance at multiple locations, etc.) than the effort described in this solicitation.

The Offeror shall include example projects (no older than 5 years) that demonstrate the capabilities of the Offeror through past experience. Examples shall at minimum describe magnitude, scope, complexity, and Offeror role.

Offerors should include a total of 6 to 10 projects, three (3) to five (5) example projects demonstrating the design-build project management experience of the Offeror. The Government desires example projects where the offeror performed/is performing as the prime contractor.

Three (3) to five (5) example projects demonstrating the experience and capability of the Offeror as a Construction Firm (as the prime contractor) when a full design has been provided by the

Government. At minimum (1) of the examples should demonstrate the capability to manage a construction contract of similar type and scope to the provided seed project.

This requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates with examples that the Offeror has past experience with projects of single or multi-discipline projects with a minimum magnitude of $250,000 and provided an example project comparable to the seed project.