Finalized_Source Selection Plan_TMACC.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Department of Homeland Security

United States Coast Guard

Source Selection Plan

Project Name: Nationwide Tower/Antenna Multiple Award Construction

IDIQ Contract (TMACC)

Solicitation No.: 70Z08822RESDV0001

Date: May 19, 2022

APPROVED BY:

Date

Ross Woodson

Source Selection Authority

5/19/21

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 1

1.0 NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE ACQUISITION

1.1 Description of the Effort.

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center (SILC) Construction

Contracting Office, has determined the need to re-procure a suite of up to seven Indefinite

Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Nationwide Tower/Antenna Multiple Award Construction

IDIQ Contract (TMACC) to perform tower and antenna construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, demolition, inspection, and repairs for the USCG in any of the 50 United States and its territories. Initial IDIQ contracts will be competitively solicited and awarded nationally.

The TMACC aggregate capacity will be $24.9 million dollars. Contractor selection will be based on Best-Value source selection (price and technical factors). Task orders will range from $3,500 to a maximum task order value of $3 million. The contract is a re-compete of the current

TMACC. The multiple award contracts offer a streamline approach to construction contracting and ongoing competition between qualified contractors. The contracts will meet a majority of the

USCG tower and antenna construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, inspection, and repairs with a value below $3M within the 50 United States and its territories.

The TMACC is set-aside for small business contractors. Each of the contracts will include a base year and four one-year options, Delivery methods may include Design-Build, One Step Turn

Key Design Build, and Design-Bid-Build. Ordering authority will be available to any United

States Coast Guard component with appropriate warrant authority. However, task orders will primarily be awarded and administered by the Coast Guard’s Civil Engineering Units (CEUs).

The scope of work will include tower and antenna construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, inspections, installations, investigations, designs, repairs, demolition, and corrective action.

Services may be required at various locations nationwide. Services may include but are not limited to the following types of work: a) inspection services, minor maintenance, and repairs; b) tower maintenance, repairs, installations, and demolitions; c) structural analyses of towers; d) investigation of design options and final design for self-supporting and guyed towers (design towers, antennas, and their foundations); and e) acquisition of soil data for proposed design sites.

1.2 Acquisition Strategy.

The Government intends to award up to seven Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Multiple

Award Construction Contracts. The USCG Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center (SILC), Construction Contracting - OL Oakland will solicit and award the TMACC. The contracts will include a base year and four option years. The source selection will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and includes evaluation factors developed in accordance with FAR 15.304.

The solicitation will include the evaluation factors including seed project price and technical factors related to the scope of work. The offeror determined to provide the best value to the government will also receive award of the seed project as the first task order. Other awardees

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 2 will receive a minimum guarantee of $1,000 which will be deducted from the base contract after the guaranteed minimum has been met through the issuance of the first respective task orders to each TMACC.

1.3 Source Selection Milestones

Event

Number of Days After SSEB Commencement

Pre-solicitation Notice 8 Days

Final RFP issued 58 Days

Proposals due from offerors 105 Days

Discussions (if conducted) 126 Days

Source Selection Decision 156 Days

Announcement of Decision 218 Days

Contract Award 218 Days

1.4 Estimated Price

The total estimated TMACC aggregate capacity is $24.9 million. The aggregate capacity takes into account historical spend, inflation, increased USCG use, and the capability to provide recapitalization in response to disasters. This will be competed and will be total small business set-aside in accordance with FAR 19.502-2. Task Orders will be firm fixed-price and awarded based on competition unless a statutory exception applies.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 3

2.0 SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The evaluation process and source selection for this acquisition involves a two-tier approach consisting of a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority

(SSA). The responsibilities of the source selection organization and members are outlined below.

The following organizational chart identifies the structure of the source selection organization:

2.1 Source Selection Authority (SSA).

The SSA will make the final source selection decision based on an independent review of the results of the proposal evaluations in accordance with FAR 15.308. The SSA for this acquisition is SILC-Chief of Construction Contracting, Ross Woodson. The SSA is responsible for the acquisition and ensures that the source selection is conducted properly and efficiently and conforms to Department of Homeland Security / United States Coast Guard and Federal acquisition policies and requirements.

The SSA responsibilities as set forth in FAR 15.303(b) are as follows:

Establish an evaluation team, tailored for the particular acquisition, that includes appropriate contracting, legal, logistics, technical, and other expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of offerors;

Approve the source selection strategy or acquisition plan, if applicable, before solicitation release;

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 4

Ensure consistency among the solicitation requirements, notices to offerors, proposal preparation instructions, evaluation factors and sub-factors, solicitation provisions or contract clauses, and data requirements;

Ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the factors and sub-factors contained in the solicitation [10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(1) and 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)(3)];

Consider the recommendations of advisory boards or panels (if any) and

Select the source or sources whose proposal is the best value to the Government [10

U.S.C. 2305(b) (4) (B) and 41 U.S.C. 253b (d) (3)].

The SSA will also:

Review and approve the Source Selection Plan (SSP)

Review and approve the source selection approach, rating method, evaluation factors, sub-factors, the weight of the evaluation factors and sub-factors, when used, and any special standards of responsibility (FAR 9.104-2) before release of the solicitation.

Appoint the chairperson and members of the SSEB, and ensure that members are properly trained (See Appendix A for SSEB member listing)

Approve the assignment of nonvoting Ex Officio (advisory) members to review specific portions of the proposals or provide other consultation as needed

Ensure that SEB operations comply with the Procurement Integrity Act (41 U.S.C. 423), conflict of interest requirements (10 U.S.C. 208) and employment and post-employment restrictions (18 U.S.C. 207). (FAR 3.104)

Provide the SSEB with guidance and special instructions for conducting the evaluation and selection process

Ensure that there is no premature or unauthorized disclosure of proprietary or source selection information

Make the final award decision (or down select decision if a Phase I or Advisory Down

Select evaluation)

2.2 Contracting Officer (KO).

The Contracting Officer (KO) oversees the regulatory process, ensures compliance with the

FAR, HSAR, HSAM, and other relevant regulations. A major responsibility is to ensure that the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP are properly addressed in the SSP. The Contracting

Officer for this acquisition is CEU Oakland Procuring Contracting Officer, Travis Cohen.

The KO responsibilities in accordance with FAR 15.303(c) are as follows:

After release of the solicitation, serve as the focal point for inquiries from actual or prospective offerors;

After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors in accordance with FAR

15.306; and

Award the contract.

The KO will also:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 5

Ensure that any exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals are handled in accordance with FAR 15.201;

Ensure the evaluation board properly evaluates the proposals against the stated evaluation criteria, and monitor compliance with source selection “rules”;

If necessary, ensure establishment of the competitive range per FAR 15.306(c);

Determine whether to conduct discussions with Offerors in the competitive range as defined in FAR Part 15.306 and how to conduct them;

Review evaluation reports;

Conduct negotiations, if applicable, in accordance with FAR 15.306;

Conduct pre-award and post award debriefings, as required.

2.3 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

The primary responsibility of the SSEB is to ensure a comprehensive evaluation is conducted of each proposal received in response to the RFP in accordance with the SSP and the evaluation factors contained in the solicitation. The SSEB should be composed of personnel familiar with the operational requirements and environment of the project. The SSEB will be led by a chairperson and will consist of committees or teams to serve as a “fact-finding” arms of the

SSEB. The SSEB will consist of two teams. The technical team is comprised of up to two members, who will serve as “fact-finding” arms of the SSEB and evaluate all proposal non-price factors using the evaluation factors. The second team is the Price Team, consisting of one member who will evaluate price separately. Therefore, the SSEB Teams are established as follows: (1) Technical Team and (2) Contract/Price Team. Non-voting members (Legal Service

Command designee), serving as technical advisors or consultants on specific topics may support the SSEB. The SSEB shall:

Assist in the development of responses to questions received from industry/potential offerors regarding the RFP and make recommendations for solicitation amendments, if necessary

Perform a preliminary review of offers to verify their acceptability

Maintain a full commitment to the evaluation process until the evaluation is complete, a decision is reached by the SSA, and the contract is awarded

Evaluate each proposal in an impartial and equitable manner and report its findings to the

SSEB Chairperson

Evaluate each proposal against the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation and ensure that proposals are not compared against one another

Identify and fully document proposal strengths, weaknesses, and clarifications as well as provide an overall assessment of each proposal

Present the results of its evaluation to the SSA

Participate in and/or assist in discussions and debriefings as required by the Contracting

Officer

Support preparation of the selection statement

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 6

2.3.1 SSEB Chairperson Responsibilities. The SSEB Chairperson appointed to lead the proposal evaluation effort will function as a working member of the board. The SSEB Chairperson appointed to lead the proposal evaluation effort is CEU Oakland Procuring Contracting Officer

Travis Cohen. The SSEB Chairperson will:

Manage the overall activities of the SSEB, distributing the workload, and ensuring compliance with source selection information security procedures;

Ensure all SSEB members are fully trained prior to start of evaluation, including any replacement SSEB members;

Ensure all SSEB members understand the evaluation objectives, procedures, schedules, and individual team member responsibilities;

Serve as the focal point for coordination and consultation with the SSA;

Coordinate technical participation for discussions (if held) with offerors and debriefings, as directed by the KO, and other activities as required;

Conduct Team caucuses for resolution of issues which may arise among team members;

Request the use of Ex-Officio(advisory) members through the SSEB Chairperson, if needed;

Provide the SSA with all evaluation documentation for the contract file;

Ensure source selection determination rationale is fully documented before source selection announcement;

Support preparation of the source selection statement;

Participate in briefings to the SSA;

Participate in de-briefing the Offerors.

2.3.2 SSEB Team Leader Responsibilities. The SSEB Team Leaders will be responsible for the oversight and direction of the evaluation teams. The Team Leaders are: 1) Technical Team, Contract Specialist Denver Johnson and 2) Contract/Cost Team Lead, Procuring Contracting

Officer Travis Cohen. The Team Leaders will:

Review the team evaluators’ write-ups of their evaluation results for completeness, consistency, and compliance with the evaluation factors and criteria (See Appendix B)

Serve as a focal point for coordination and consultation with the SSEB Chairperson

Assign advisors to specific sections of the proposal for review, if necessary

Request the use of Ex-officio (advisory) members through the SSEB Chairperson, if needed

Conduct team caucuses for resolution of issues which may arise among team members

Prepare team reports for the SSEB Chairperson and the SSA

Participate in briefings to the SSA

Participate in de-briefing the offerors

2.3.3 SSEB Evaluator Responsibilities. The SSEB Evaluators are voting members of the SSEB, and will be responsible for determining how well proposals satisfy the requirements of the RFP.

This will be accomplished by evaluating all written and oral proposals and rating each of them against the appropriate evaluation factors specified in the solicitation and the SSP (See Appendix

B).

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 7

2.3.4 SSEB Ex-officio Member (Advisor) Responsibilities. The SSEB Ex-officio members will be responsible for reviewing specific portions of the proposal as directed by the Team Leaders or to provide other consultation as needed. They should be selected for the experience and expertise they can provide to the SSEB. Since their advisory role may require access to highly sensitive

SSEB material and findings, ex-officio membership should be kept to a minimum. Ex-officio

Members are: Legal Counsel Representative Gina Sirianni, Legal Counsel, Technical Advisor

Daniel Riquer and Small Business Specialist Mark Snell. The Ex-officio Members/Advisors:

Will be non-voting members of the SSEB

Will identify preliminary issues before the oral presentations

Will attend oral presentations at the discretion of the Team Leaders. If selected to attend oral presentations, the advisor must attend all oral presentations

Will have restricted visibility of the proposals

Do not assign or recommend merit or confidence ratings

Will not participate in the caucus process unless specifically asked to do so by the team leader

Are bound by non-disclosure rules

2.3.5 Observer Roles and Responsibilities. Observers will have limited participation in the source selection. The role of the “observer” will be to permit an appropriate level of knowledge and insight by selected representatives of Government organizations who have legitimate interests in the source selection process. Observers will have the opportunity at key points in the evaluation process to be present and become thoroughly familiar with the activities of the SSEB.

Observers are not permitted to become actively involved in any evaluation process and are permitted only to monitor the activities of the source selection. This involvement will require completion of appropriate non-disclosure forms.

2.4 Duration and Location of the Evaluation.

The duration of the SSEB process will be governed to a great extent by the number of proposals received. The evaluation committee members will remain available and committed until all evaluation and source selection actions have been completed. All evaluation committee members will be required to be present at the evaluation location during normal duty hours. Work after normal duty hours, weekends and holidays may be necessary. The proposal evaluations will be performed at CEU Oakland (Oakland Federal Building, Suite 700N). All facilities used for source selection will be configured so that the evaluation can be performed in a controlled area.

3.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide critical input to the source selection determination by providing a rational basis for selection of the successful offerors. Evaluators will not compare one proposal against another, but rather evaluate each proposal against the factors and sub-factors stated in the solicitation using the methodology stated in the SSP (See

Appendix B). The evaluation process provides the necessary analysis of the proposals, which will allow the SSA to decide which proposals provide the best value to the Government.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 8

3.1 Preparation and Training.

Several functions must be performed prior to initiation of the actual evaluation process.

The SSP evaluation strategy and criteria must be approved by the SSA.

Personnel participating in the SSEB must be identified and notified.

Non-government participants in the source selection must sign non-disclosure and other related statements that become part of the official supporting documentation.

Participants in the source selection must read the RFP to become thoroughly familiar with contract and project requirements. Any questions concerning the RFP requirements, evaluation process, or criteria should be directed to the CO for resolution.

Evaluation team members must acquire a thorough knowledge and understanding of the evaluation criteria and how they are applied.

Personnel participating in the source selection will be required to attend an introductory briefing to familiarize them with:

o Proposal response breakout and team assignments o How the evaluation will be conducted o Application of evaluation criteria o The oral proposal process (if used) o Rating proposals and documenting the results o Protection of source selection information o Necessary administrative details

3.2 Proposal Evaluation.

SSEB Evaluators will assess proposals based on how well the Offerors meet the factors outlined in the RFP 70Z08822RESDV0001 using the evaluation criteria and instructions in the SSP (See

Appendix B). Evaluators will assess each proposal and create a narrative description of strengths, weaknesses and areas requiring clarification to support the proposal’s rating. Evaluators will then meet as a group to discuss their individual assessments. As a team, the SSEB will assign ratings to each proposal.

3.3 Definitions.

A significant strength is defined as an element of a proposal which significantly exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a way that is very beneficial to the Government.

A strength is defined as an element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government.

A weakness is defined as a flaw in a proposal that increases the chance of unsuccessful performance.

A significant weakness is a flaw in a proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A deficiency is defined as a material failure of an offer or quotation to meet a

Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in an offer or

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 9 quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

A clarification is defined as a limited exchange between the Government and an offeror, under a competitively negotiated procurement, that occurs when award on initial proposals is contemplated. Clarifications do not result in the submission of a revised offer or quotation.

3.4 Discussions. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award up to seven IDIQ contracts and one firm fixed- price task order award without discussions with Offerors.

Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

3.5 Limits on Exchanges.

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

Favors one offeror over another

Reveals an offeror’ s technical solution, including unique technology, innovative and unique uses of commercial items, or any information that could compromise an offeror’ s intellectual property to another offeror

Reveals the names of the individuals providing reference information about an offeror’ s past performance

Knowingly furnishes source selection information in violation of FAR Part 3.104 and 41

U.S.C. 423(h)(1)(2)

3.6 Source Selection Documentation.

It is extremely important that the source selection process is adequately documented, both to substantiate and provide an audit trail for the source selection decision and support that decision against possible protests by unsuccessful offerors. The appropriate documents, including the

SSA’s decision document, as required by FAR 15.308, briefings to the SSA, and other reports as necessary to capture all consensus findings of the SSEB, will be retained as part of the contract file.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 10

4.0 EVALUATION RATINGS

4.1 Evaluation Factors and Methodology.

All proposals shall be evaluated by the SSEB in accordance with the factors and criteria established in the SSP (See Appendix B). The evaluation criteria provides for past performance and technical/ management approach evaluations based upon criteria established before receipt of the proposals and is intended to ensure that the evaluation will be a structured process employing equitable measures.

5.0 SECURITY OF SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

5.1 Restriction of Source Selection Participants.

Because participation in a source selection involves access to procurement sensitive information it is essential that it be safeguarded in a manner similar to "classified" material. Participants in a source selection must accept and be willing to certify their acceptance of certain restrictions when nominated to serve on the SSEB. Participants shall not disclose proprietary or source selection information in accordance with FAR 3.104-5. Participants must avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interests. Participants will be required to understand and sign a Conflict of

Interest and Non-Disclosure Statement.

5.2 Document Control.

Proposals, the SSP, and other material related to the source selection will be closely controlled by the SSEB. All work performed as part of this source selection will be conducted at the source selection facility, and source selection materials will not be removed from the evaluation work location, except with the specific, expressed permission of the Contracting Officer. Following contract award, proposals will be disposed of in accordance with established procedures.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 11

APPENDIX A

Source Selection Organization Member Listing

1. Source Selection Authority: Ross Woodson, SILC-Chief of Construction Contracting

2. SSEB Members:

A. Chairman: Travis Cohen, Senior Field Contracting Officer SILC-CON CEU Oakland

B. Technical Team Evaluators:

Denver Johnson, Contract Specialist– Team Leader

Dominik Benedetto, CEU Miami Asset Line Manager (Acting)

Samantha Kenis, CEU Miami Asset Line

C. Contract/ Cost Team Evaluators

Travis Cohen, Procuring Contracting Officer - Team Leader

3. Advisors:

Gina Sirianni, Attorney– Ex-Officio Advisor, Legal

Daniel Riquer – Ex-Officio Advisor, Technical Factor 3

Mark Snell, Small Business Specialist

4. Changes or additions to the composition of the Source Selection Organization may only be made with the approval of the Source Selection Authority.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 12

APPENDIX B

Evaluation Factors and Methodology

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

The solicitation will include evaluation factors including price, relevant experience, past performance and technical approach to Seed project. The government intends to award no more than seven contracts to the responsible contractors whose proposals conform to the solicitation and are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, all price and non-price factors considered. The minimum guarantee for each individual contract will be $1,000.

Proposals for the Seed Project ‘Tower Inspection, Maintenance and Repairs of U.S. Coast Guard

Towers at Various Sites in CG District Eleven (California) and District Thirteen

(Oregon/Washington)’ received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated by the Technical

Evaluation Panel (TEP) in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth herein. The offeror determined to provide the best value to the government will also receive award of the seed project as the first task order.

a. Factor Identification – This evaluation team will evaluate the offerors by the proposals received in response to the United States Coast Guard Nationwide Tower/Antenna Multiple

Award Construction IDIQ Contract (TMACC) Request for Proposals 70Z08822RESDV0001 using the following factors:

Non Price Factors o Factor 1 – Relevant Experience o Factor 2 - Past Performance o Factor 3 - Technical Solution for Seed Project

Price Evaluation Factor-Seed Project

b. Order of Importance – All non-price factors are considered of approximately equal weight.

1.1 Factor 1, Relevant Experience:

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts and experience approximately the same in scope, magnitude, and complexity as described in the solicitation’s scope of services. The purpose of the relevant experience evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated performance.

a. Scope of Work: The scope of work will include construction for miscellaneous tower and antenna construction, maintenance rehabilitation, inspections, installations, investigations, designs, repairs, demolitions, structural analysis and corrective action.

b. Submittal Requirements:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 13

1. Offers are required to submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant tower construction projects that demonstrates the firm’s experience on relevant projects that were completed and that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the projects anticipated to be executed on the TMACC. These projects should also have past performance information available. If the past performance is not in CPARS, offerors shall submit completed past performance questionnaires.

2. For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed, the project delivery method utilized, and the relevancy to the project requirements of the RFP.

3. Offerors shall submit the Attachment- Experience Information Sheet. Additional lines may be added as necessary not to exceed one additional page total per project information sheet. Offerors are responsible for providing project descriptions in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of project relevancy and may provide additional descriptive information on each form beyond what is required in the attachment. One page of photographs per project may be provided in order to provide clarity to the project description and do not count against the page limit per Project Information

Sheet.

4. If the Offeror is using experience information of an affiliate, subsidiary, or parent that is not the name as exactly stated on the SF1442, the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate, subsidiary, or parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

c. Minimum Requirement: Projects submitted for review shall be valued over $150,000 and substantially completed (65%) within the past six years of the date of issuance of this

RFP. A project is defined as a construction/service project performed under a single task order or contract. At least one project shall represent experience with guyed-towers and one project shall demonstrate experience with self-supporting towers.

d. Basis of Evaluation: The offeror will be evaluated based on the extent of its demonstration of relevant experience including work experience within the USA and its territories, relevant experience on projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the

TMACC, and relevant experience working on guyed-towers and self-supporting towers.

The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to meet the requirements of the RFP successfully. A diverse representation of a various tower construction project experience (inclusive of the types of projects outlined- construction, maintenance rehabilitation, inspections, installations, investigations, designs, repairs, demolitions, structural analysis and corrective action) may result in a higher rating. Significant experience working in diverse locations nationwide may result in a higher rating.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 14

1.2 Factor 2, Past Performance: The distinction between relevant experience and past performance is that relevant experience pertains to the types of work and projects completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to how well a contractor has performed on relevant projects.

a. Submission Requirements:

1. The Projects identified on the “Experience Information Sheet” for the relevant experience factor shall have past performance evaluations available. The offeror will be evaluated based on the CPARS evaluation for a submitted project if there is a CPARS. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation for a submitted project, a client completed Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment C) must be submitted.

2. Past Performance Questionnaire Submission. If the past performance is not in

CPARS, offerors shall submit completed the Attachment-Past Performance

Questionnaire in the prescribed format. Past Performance Questionnaire, shall be submitted directly to the Contracting Officers via email to

Travis.Cohen@uscg.mil and Denver.L.Johnson@uscg.mil to arrive no later than the closing date in Block 13 of the SF 1442.

3. In addition, a supplemental narrative of no more than one page in length may accompany each past performance submission and may be used as required to provide amplifying information on the submission. Offerors are encouraged to use this narrative to discussion problems and corrective actions taken.

4. Additional Review: In addition to the above, the Government may also elect to consider past performance data from other documented sources. However, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 15

b. Minimum Requirement: Past Performance Information shall be submitted on all the

Projects identified on the “Experience Information Sheet”. Past performance information must be submitted in the form of a CPARS evaluation report or a client completed Past

Performance Questionnaire.

c. Basis of Evaluation:

1. The government will assess the quality of the offeror’ s past performance by determining how well the contractor performed on the submitted relevant contracts and other related past performance information as stated above.

2. The following will be considered as part of past performance:

Quality– The offeror will be evaluated on compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy of reports, and technical excellence to include Quality awards/certificates as indicated by the CPARS Evaluation or Past

Performance Questionnaire.

Timeliness- The offeror will be evaluated on meeting milestones, reliability, responsiveness to technical direction, deliverables completed on-time, adherence to contract schedules including contract administration as indicated by the CPARS Evaluation or Past Performance Questionnaire.

Cost Control-The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to perform within or below budget, use of cost efficiencies, relationship of negotiated costs to actuals, submission of reasonably priced change proposals, and providing current, accurate, and complete billing timely as indicated by the CPARS

Evaluation or Past Performance Questionnaire.

Business Relations- The offeror will be evaluated on the working relationship between the contractor and contract administration team, as well as other requirements of the contract not directly related to cost, schedule and performance including management, customer satisfaction, safety and security and professional behavior as indicated by the CPARS Evaluation or

Past Performance Questionnaire.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 16

The Government may consider Past Performance in the aggregate as part of a proposal rating. Past Performance records submitted for projects relevant to the scope of this requirement will be evaluated. The Government will consider how well the contractor performed on the contracts for each Past Performance submittal reviewed. This quality review may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as Past Performance information that supports a less-than-satisfactory rating on any evaluation elements or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluator will consider any available information provided in the supplementary narrative related to the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. A strong record of positive past performance may result in a higher rating.

1.3 Factor 3, Technical Solution Seed Project: The offeror will be evaluated based on their execution strategy for the project including all processes and approach as they relate to the

Seed Project requirements, project site, geographic area and other challenges.

Seed Project Title: Tower Inspection, Maintenance and Repairs of U.S. Coast Guard Towers at Various Sites in CG District Eleven (California) and District Thirteen

(Oregon/Washington).

1. Submission Requirements: Seed Project Technical Submittal shall include but is not limited to:

a. Minimum Requirement: Offerors must submit resumes (not to exceed two pages in length each) for key personnel identified in #3 below and must also provide a narrative not to exceed five pages that includes the execution narrative and management plan (work plan, safety plan, plan for ensuring quality of services, and list of key personnel) described in #1 and #2 below. The narrative shall be a minimum of two (2) pages (five (5) page maximum) and shall include:

1. Execution Narrative. Narrative shall describe the offeror’s execution strategy for the project including all processes and approaches as they relate to this particular project’s requirements, project sites, schedules, geographic areas and other challenges.

2. Management Plan. A discussion of the offeror’ s Management Plan to include but not limited to:

a. A Work Plan taking into account all work elements in Seed Project

Statement of Work and addressing the offeror’ s approach to executing requirements in diverse geographic locations. This discussion should address staffing and types of supplies, equipment and materials required for performance of services for this seed project. In addition, the work

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 17 plan narrative should identify any major activities that will be subcontracted on the seed project;

b. A Safety Plan taking into account all safety elements in the Seed Project

Statement of Work and addressing the offeror’ s approach to managing safety. This discussion should address how the offeror will meet the U.S.

OSHA requirements for tower erection, maintenance and repair and the safety climb and fall protection requirements.

c. Plan of ensuring quality of services including but not limited to contract administration and oversight. This discussion should identify of a central point of contact for managing the TMACC, including qualifications.

d. In addition, the names for key personnel shall be provided to include (1) project manager; (2) qualified climber; and (3) qualified inspector.

e. Resumes for Key Personnel. The Offeror shall provide resumes for key project personnel to include (1) project manager; (2) qualified climber; and (3) qualified inspector. Resumes are limited to two (2) pages and shall provide the following information:

i. Name, years of experience, training, unique or special qualifications, positions held and tenure;

ii. Degrees held and/or other pertinent education. Include date(s), degree(s), and identify the respective college or university from which the degree(s) were received;

iii. Work history as it relates to the anticipated SOW task(s);

iv. Show connection between individual work histories and the past performance information presented in the Past Performance

Evaluation Section;

v. Successful accomplishment of challenging tasks relevant to their work assignment.

vi. At a minimum, key personnel shall understand written and spoken

English and have at least three years’ experience performing maintenance, inspections, and repairs on guyed and self-supporting communication towers.

vii. For the position of qualified inspector, the resume should reflect that the individual has experience recording and adjusting guy tensions, tower alignment and twist in accordance with TIA-222-H

Annex J & K.

2. Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Seed Project Technical

Submittal to determine the manner and extent to which the Offeror’s proposed solutions, approaches, and resources demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and meet or exceed performance and capability requirements. Evaluation shall include a review of project execution narrative, management plan and key personnel (resumes) as

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 18 defined in M 1.3.1 Seed Project Submission Requirements. Proposals that exceed the defined minimum requirements may result in a higher rating. Proposals that provide specific and detailed evidence that the offeror can provide the necessary personnel

(technicians/laborers), tools, supplies, materials, and financial resources needed to perform the work may considered for a higher rating. Proposals that include resumes which significantly exceed the minimum experience requirements may receive a higher rating.

1.4 FACTOR 4: PRICE

a. Submission Requirements: The Government will evaluate pricing for the Seed Project

“Tower Inspection, Maintenance and Repairs of U.S. Coast Guard Towers at Various

Sites in CG District Eleven (California) and District Thirteen (Oregon/Washington)” in accordance with the price schedule issued with the Request for Proposal (Section B /

Schedule of Prices).

b. Minimum Requirement: Seed Project Pricing: The offeror shall provide their binding price for the Seed Project “Tower Inspection, Maintenance and Repairs of U.S. Coast

Guard Towers at Various Sites in CG District Eleven (California) and District Thirteen

(Oregon/Washington)”. Pricing shall be submitted in accordance with the price schedule issued with the Request for Proposal (Section B / Schedule of Prices).

c. Basis of Price Reasonableness Evaluation: The total evaluated price will be calculated by summing the total for the seed project. The Government may use various price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 proposal analysis techniques as well as procedures to evaluate the overall price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation

2. Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.

3. Comparison of proposed pricing obtained through market research, parametric estimating methods, or historical information.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY.

The Government intends to award up to seven contracts to the responsive responsible offerors offering the best value. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

a. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. It is DHS Policy that pricing for competitive negotiations should

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 19 be based on adequate competition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting

Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR

15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the Contracting

Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists offerors may be required to submit information other than cost or pricing data to support a determination of price reasonableness.

b. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offerors or other than the highest technically rated offerors. In selecting the best value, the following factors will be considered: relevant experience, past performance, seed project technical submittal and price. All non-price evaluation factors are equal to one another and when combined are approximately equal to price.

c. Definitions: The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation of each non-price factor.

Strength: An element of a proposal that exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that indicates a possible risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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. Adjectival Ratings/Descriptions.

Rating for Non-Price Factors: The Government will evaluate all non-price factors including

Factor 1 Relevant Experience, Factor 2 Past Performance, and Factor 3 Technical Solution

Seed Project and document the Strengths, Weakness, Significant Weakness and Deficiencies prior to assigning a single adjectival rating for each of the proposals’ non-price factors.

An overall non-price rating will be assigned to each proposal. The evaluators will demonstrate an overall rating that is consistent with the definition as it applies to the composite of all non-price factors. The rating determination will be documented in a narrative manner that outlines all considerations that were made. The evaluators will not make any attempt to derive an overall rating that is based solely on individual non-price factor ratings. The adjectival ratings (and associated definitions) for the Non-Price Ratings are listed below.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 20

Table 1.1

Rating Definition

Exceptional

Proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has strengths that will significantly benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Very Good

Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements and an approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory

Proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable solution with few or no strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Marginal Proposal demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirements and an approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory

Proposal fails to meet requirements and one or more deficiencies exist for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal. A contract cannot be awarded with this proposal.

Neutral (For Past

Performance Factor

Only)

An offeror without relevant past performance, or for whom information of past performance is not available will be considered to have neutral past performance. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

4. RATING INSTRUCTIONS

a. Preliminary Review. Upon receipt of the offers, the Contracting Officer (KO) will screen each offer with the objective of determining if they respond to the requirements of the solicitation. Rating is not to be conducted at this time. If the KO determines that any offer has material omissions and fails to provide information required by the solicitation for evaluation then the offer will be deficient on its face. The KO will document the file if an offer is eliminated from consideration without further review. The KO will determine what action is required and, as necessary, obtain information from the offerors in writing.

b. Technical Review. After preliminary review, the Contracting Officer (KO) will provide the non- price proposals, to include relevant experience, past performance and technical approach to seed project, for each offer to the Technical Evaluation Team for review.

Price evaluation is not to be conducted at this time. The technical team members will independently screen each offeror’s non-price proposal with the objective of determining if they respond to the requirements of the solicitation. If a technical team member determines that any offer has omissions and fails to provide information required by the solicitation for evaluation then the team member will make a list of any additional information required from the contractor and forward that information to the KO. The

KO will determine what action is required and, as necessary, obtain information from the offerors in writing.

c. Technical Evaluation.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page 21

1. Step One-Individual Evaluation: Technical Evaluation Team Member shall complete the evaluation process and thoroughly describe, in writing, strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and weaknesses of the offers utilizing the

Evaluation Matrix (Appendix D). Ratings are not to be assigned at this time. This identification and assessment is one of the most critical elements in the evaluation and source selection process. In order to make a sound decision, the SSA needs to understand the ways in which an offeror’s approach to a given factor is technically strong, as well as how it is weak or deficient. This catalog facilitates the process of arriving at a well-informed judgment as to which proposals are most advantageous to the Government. Consider the following when documenting in writing, the areas of strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and weaknesses of each offer:

A strength is defined as an element of a proposal that exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government. Hence, when identifying strengths, evaluators must also state the benefit the Government would receive from the contractor’s capabilities.

A weakness is defined as a flaw in a proposal that increases the chance of unsuccessful performance. When identifying a weakness, evaluators must comment on the significance of the weaknesses and the expected impact of such weakness on contract performance.

A significant weakness is a flaw in a proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. When identifying a weakness, evaluators must comment on the significance of the weaknesses and the expected impact of such weakness on contract performance.

A deficiency is defined as a material failure of an offer to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in an offer or quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

A clarification is defined as a limited exchange between the Government and an offeror, under a competitively negotiated procurement, that occurs when award on initial proposals is contemplated. Clarifications do not result in the submission of a revised offer.

Ambiguities: Occasionally, language in a proposal is ambiguous, and the proposal’s technical merit will differ depending on which of the possible meanings is chosen by the evaluator.