Fire_Alarm_Eval_Factors _29_May_14.docx

Synopsis/Solicitation Attachment 2 – Evaluation Criteria Project Name: Repair CH&PP Fire Alarm System Project Number: FTQW 08-1025

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Submissions of completed Standard Form 330 (SF 330) received in response to this notice will be evaluated by a government evaluation board in accordance with The Brooks Act, Public Law 92-582, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36, and DoD Source Selection Procedures to determine the most highly qualified firms. In addition, recent and relevant performance in designing projects whose construction cost is between $500K and $2.0M may result in a higher rating and should be addressed accordingly. Evaluation of past performance and experience may include information provided by the offeror, customer inquiries, government databases, and publicly available sources. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact, or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified. Offerors are responsible for collecting and submitting past performance questionnaires with their final packages to 354 CONS/LGCA before the closing date of this synopsis.

2. Selection Criteria: Each firm must demonstrate their (including subcontractors’) qualifications with respect to the selection criteria listed below. Evaluation criteria (a) through (c) are of equal importance; criterion (d) is of lesser importance than criteria (a) through (c), and criterion (e) is of least importance and will be used as a tiebreaker among technically equal firms. SF-330s will be evaluated to determine the most highly qualified firm/team based on submitted SF-330 responses. Failure to provide requested data or comply with the instructions in this synopsis and SF-330 instructions could result in a firm considered being less qualified or eliminated from consideration. Specific evaluation criteria include:

a. Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services;

b. Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including where appropriate, experience in energy conservation;

c. Past Performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules;

d. Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project;

e. Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time;

3. Selection Criteria Evaluation Factors:

a. Professional Qualifications: SF-330, Part II Block 9. The Air Force will consider any information, which may be pertinent to this criterion. Key personnel shall be permanent employees of the prime firm/team rather than temporary “contract” employee arrangements. Failure to provide a balanced workforce in the disciplines listed could result in the firm being considered not qualified. The combination of criteria below will be used to determine the ability of the staff to contribute to the successful completion of project task orders. Firms with greater breadth of in-house expertise will be rated higher than those needing to hire sub-consultants. The offeror’s team shall include staff members licensed in the State of Alaska in the following disciplines:

i. Fire Protection Engineer

ii. Electrical Engineer

In addition, offerors shall demonstrate their qualification for the following:

iv. Industrial Hygienists

v. Cost Estimating

The Professional Qualifications factor will be evaluated and assigned a Combined Technical/Risk Rating according to table 1 below. Any offeror receiving a rating of Yellow or Red for any factor will be removed from further consideration.

Table 1. Professional Qualifications - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Blue

Outstanding The prime consultant or his sub-consultants have more than one licensed professional in each discipline referenced above (Para 3.a), and employees in each discipline meet the minimum requirements of the labor category descriptions indicated in the Schedule. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Green

Acceptable Prime consultant or sub-consultants employ each discipline referenced above (Para 3.a), but lacks depth (either number of employees, years of experience, or both) in one area. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal Prime consultant or sub-consultants employ each discipline referenced above (Para 3.a), but lacks depth (either number of employees, years of experience, or both) in several areas. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable Prime consultant or sub-consultants lack depth of either number of employees, years of experience, or both) in a significant number of areas, or entirely lacks professional employees in one or more of the required disciplines referenced above (Para 3.a). Proposal is unacceptable.

b. Specialized Experience and Technical Competence: SF-330, Part II, Block 10. The Air Force will consider any information which may be pertinent to this criterion, including the following: specialized experience and technical competence in the performance of services similar to those anticipated under this contract in terms of recent and relevant experience with regard to the project examples described below, as well as demonstrated experience with DoD facility design.

b.1. The evaluation board will be placing emphasis on the following items when evaluating this factor: experience designing addressable fire detection and alarm systems, especially for hot, dirty and hazardous environments, specifically Class II, Div1 and 2, Group F; experience designing Mass Notification Systems; experience in surveying existing facilities for hazardous materials, and design including remediation of such hazards as necessary to complete the other work of the project.

b.2. Example Projects:

b.2.a. Submit example design projects in narrative format that highlight the experience factors listed above. Design project examples should not exceed one single side page each. All experience factors do not have to be included in a single project. The offeror may submit multiple projects to demonstrate experience in all relevant types of work, however, do not submit more than five projects total. For submittal purposes, if a completed ID/IQ task order is submitted, the completed task order would be considered a “project”. Do not list an ID/IQ contract as an example of a completed “project”. Instead, list the relevant completed task order(s) or single/stand-alone contract.

b.2.b The narratives of example projects should show contract number, issuing agency, project name, a current point of contact including telephone and email information, project scope, size, design fees, the total number of modifications/change orders issued during performance of project, date of project completion, estimated construction cost, principal design elements and features, complexity of the job, challenges faced, actions taken, and the resolution and results of any challenges faced. In addition, and if known, list the construction contract award price, the total number of construction contract modifications/change orders, and their total value.

b.2.c. Example projects may be from the private or public sector however, DoD projects may be rated higher. Projects completed more recently will be evaluated more advantageously. All example projects must have been completed within the past five years from the date of this synopsis. Evaluation will consider the relevancy of projects identified.

b.2.d. Examples of work submitted that do not meet the requirements specified here will not be evaluated. Failure to provide requested data, accessible points of contact or valid phone numbers could result in a firm being considered less qualified and eliminated from further consideration.

b.3. The Specialized Experience and Technical Competence factor will be evaluated and assigned a Combined Technical/Risk Rating according to table 2 below.

Table 2. Specialized Experience - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Satisfactory design experience on DoD projects, or mix of DoD and non- DoD projects, similar to all or most of the types of work described above in Section 3.b within the last five (5) years. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good Satisfactory design experience on DoD projects, or mix of DoD and non- DoD projects, similar to many of the types of work described above in Para 4.a within the last five (5) years. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory design experience on non-DoD projects, similar to many of the types of work described above in Section 3.b within the last five (5) years. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Design experience on projects similar to some, but not all, types of work described in Section 3.b likely to be designed under the contract. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

c. Past Performance c.1 Past Performance Recency and Relevancy: In a single page narrative form provide past performance in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules for each example project submitted under Specialized Experience and Technical Competence. In addition to past performance information provided, the evaluation will include information available within the DoD, Federal, state, private industry or other sources. In addition to the narrative described above, forward the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) of this synopsis, to each project point of contact. Completed PPQ forms shall be submitted as part of the firms’ proposal package. Firms may include any ratings, letters of appreciation or performance, awards etc., for relevant experience however, Federal database content and PPQs will be evaluated more advantageously. Reponses will be evaluated to determine firms ability to maintain cost, schedule, quality, and customer satisfaction. Recency is defined as projects performed within the last five (5) years or the most recent five (5) contracts; whichever occurs first. Relevant performance is defined in Table 3 below.

c.2 Past Performance Relevancy ratings will be assigned according to table 3 below.

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

c.2.1 Past Performance Confidence: A Performance Confidence Assessment shall be used to assist in determining the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The performance confidence assessment considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Offerors are responsible for collecting and submitting past performance questionnaires with their final packages to 354 CONS/LGCA before the closing date of this synopsis.

c.2.2 Performance Confidence Assessment ratings will be assigned according to table 4 below.

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessment

d. Geographic proximity to the general area of the requiring activity as well as knowledge of the area of Eielson AFB, Alaska. In single page narrative form demonstrate firm’s familiarity with local conditions to include knowledge of, and experience dealing with, the regulatory agencies, logistics, climatic conditions or local design and construction methods.

d.1 Geographic Proximity ratings will be assigned according to table 5 below.

Table 5. Geographic Proximity – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

The prime and sub-consultants have local offices with most of the disciplines; the remainder is located in Alaska. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

The prime and/or sub-consultants have local offices with some of the disciplines; the remainder is located in Alaska. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

e. Capacity: Demonstrate how the firm(s) will manage, coordinate and administer the work within the prime and among any teaming partners. Teaming partners to be included by the prime firm in their response should be clearly identified as such for evaluation purposes and will later be agreed to during negotiations of any resultant contract. SF-330, Part II, Block 11 will also be evaluated to assist in determining this factor. The Air Force will consider any information which may be pertinent to this criterion, including the following:

· Capacity to perform work in-house and with teaming members;

· Demonstrate active on-going Federal and Non-Federal work (Address current dollar value of work, number of current projects, management approach to your on-going work, and how the team will support the work requirements outlined in this synopsis in addition to current work).

· The Capacity factor will be evaluated and assigned a Combined Technical/Risk Rating according to table 6 below.

Table 6. Capacity – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Offeror’s projected workload indicates ample capacity to devote to Eielson AFB projects and to complete work on time. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Offeror indicates a moderate projected workload. Despite the projected workload, there should be little risk of failing to meet Eielson AFB schedules. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Offeror indicates projected workload is high, but states that, despite that workload, Eielson AFB projects will be completed on schedule. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable Offeror indicates his projected workload is very high. Eielson AFB project completion may be delayed due to other commitments. Proposal is unacceptable.

Once the selection board has evaluated all offerors against the selection criteria, the board will hold discussions with the top three (3) firms. After the discussions are complete, the board will rank the top three firms and request a pricing proposal from the highest ranked firm. If pricing from the most highly qualified firm is determined to be fair and reasonable, a contract will be awarded to that firm. The CO reserves the right to initiate negotiations with firms in order to negotiate specific items. Under no circumstances will the CO award a contract to any offeror that has received a Technical/Risk rating of Yellow or Red or has received a Performance Confidence Rating of Limited Confidence or No Confidence.