Instructions_and_evaluation_criteria_REV_1_Jan_18_2013.pdf

Solicitation # GS-09P-12-KS-C-0023 Revised January 2013

PROPOSALS

All questions are to be submitted via email to thuy.ta@gsa.gov not later than 12 Noon Pacific time, Friday, February 8, 2013.

Proposals are due by email to Thuy.Ta@gsa.gov not later than 12 Noon Pacific time, Friday, February 15, 2013. Offerors must also (a) be registered on www.sam.gov to include having representations and certifications posted, and (b) be included on the DOE ESCO qualified list (required by statute) at this time.

A. Proposal Contents

Proposals shall consist of the following documents, completed and executed in accordance with this Solicitation:

1. Price Proposal

2. Technical narrative for each EEM, to include any additional details or deviations from the measures.

3. References

4. Bid Guarantee, using Standard Form 24

5. Sub- Contracting Plan

B. Price Proposal

1. Contents

The Price Proposal shall consist of the SF 1442 and all schedules from the “Required Financial Schedules” (5 schedules), plus the detailed spreadsheets for the 300 N. Los Angeles Street/Roybal ECMs, and the O&M price schedule found within the O&M Requirements.

2. Qualifications, Exclusions and Conditions

Deviations from the solicitation, statements of work or specifications which do not violate statutes or mandatory clauses may not, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, be grounds for exclusion. Where inclusion of a non-compliant offer is determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the best interests of the Government to consider, then such Offeror may be included in negotiations. However in the unlikely event that negotiations are not opened non-compliant offers will be excluded from consideration.

mailto:thuy.ta@gsa.gov mailto:Thuy.Ta@gsa.gov http://www.sam.gov/

Solicitation # GS-09P-12-KS-C-0023 Revised January 2013

C. EEM Narrative

Provide a narrative for each EEM, which optionally may be accompanied by schematic drawings, product literature or other information, to provide any additional details or to take any exceptions to EEMs as specified. Such narratives should explain any deviations from the predicted savings for each EEM as found in the statements of work. A separate narrative must be included for each EEM, and must be clearly labeled. EEM narratives are encouraged to be succinct (i.e., short) so long as explanations are clear and sufficiently detailed.

D. References

Submit a minimum of five references for comparable project work within the last three years for the offeror, and for each major subcontractor for whom credit under the experience factor is sought; and also five references for comparable O&M work within the last three years for the offeror, and for each major subcontractor for whom credit under the experience factor is sought.

References must as a minimum (for a satisfactory experience rating) demonstrate significant experience with HVAC work comparable to the work included in this solicitation in scale and complexity, and significant operations and maintenance experience with large commercial, institutional or government facilities. References must include current contact information to knowledgeable client representatives. More than five references in each category may help support the Offeror's evaluation. Work local to the requirement of this solicitation is preferred.

E. Requirements for Joint Venture Offerors

1. All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of an executed joint venture agreement (with original signatures) which fully discloses the legal identity of each member of the joint venture, the relationship between the members, the form of ownership of each member, and any limitations on liability or authority for each member.

2. An authorized representative of each member of the joint venture must sign the SF 1442 accompanying an offer regardless of any agency relationship established between the members.

3. In the case of corporations that are joint venture members, the corporation secretary must certify that the corporation is authorized to participate in the joint venture, either by so certifying in the joint venture agreement, or by submitting a separate certification to the Government. The joint venture must also provide a certificate that identifies a principal representative of the joint venture with full authority to bind the joint venture.

4. All information to be submitted with an offer set forth herein (e.g., representations and certifications, financial information, experience and past performance) must be submitted for each member of the joint venture.

Method of Award

A. Evaluation of Offers

The Government will award a contract resulting from this Solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, following any negotiations, is most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

There will be three price factors. In order of importance these are:

1. Net present value considering payment and savings streams for financed project work.

2. Net present value of cancellation ceilings (using each annual cancellation ceiling amount from Schedule 5)i

3. Net present value of O&M payments and savings (from the Government’s O&M estimate, which will not be disclosed) for O&M.

Payments and savings will be discounted by the 3% real discount factor used for federal energy projects.

There will be three non-price factors. In order of importance these are:

1. EEM Narratives

1. Experience (project and O&M)

2. Past Performance (project and O&M)

Price factors in the aggregate are of more importance than non-price factors.

The Government anticipates opening negotiations, although reserves the right to not open negotiations. Negotiations if opened are anticipated to be broad in nature, and may result in reasonable adjustments to the scope of work (e.g., elimination or revision of EEMs determined to be less desirable than thought).

No award may be made unless minimum statutory requirements are met, for example guaranteed savings must exceed payments.

B. Determination of Responsibility

In order to be considered responsible, an Offeror must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer's determination of an Offeror's responsibility or non-responsibility may be based upon any information obtained by the Contracting Officer, and is independent of the evaluation of offers set forth herein.

C. Price Reasonableness

All offers must include reasonable prices. The Contracting Officer may reject all offers containing prices determined to be unreasonably high.

D. Unbalanced Prices

All offers must include balanced prices.

E. Non-Price Factors

1. EEM Narratives

Narratives will be evaluated for:

a) Conformity to solicitation, statements of work and specifications. All mandatory EEMs must be included.

b) Enhancement of EEMs (i.e., offering more than is required).

c) Rigor of measurement and verification promises.

Evaluation will be weighted such that more substantial EEMs carry greater weight.

A satisfactory rating will be granted where there is no deviation from the solicitation, statements of work or specifications. Such a narrative may consist of nothing more than a statement that all requirements will be met as stated (if this is done, the schedules must reflect the savings estimated in the statements of work). A satisfactory rating may also be granted where there are deviations but (a) the deviations are determined insubstantial to the intent of the EEMs, or (b) the deviations are determined to be technically justified (e.g., the evaluators agree with the Offeror’s concerns about the scope). In these cases the deviations must be explained with sufficient detail that the evaluators can assess impact and reasonableness.

A greater than satisfactory rating may be granted for some combination of:

a) EEMs are enhanced such that the evaluators can determine that the Offeror is adding value to the Government above the existing EEM statement of work and specification.

b) M&V commitments are made in the narratives that provide value above normal minimal requirements – e.g., diagnostic methodologies, continuous remote monitoring, etc.

2. Experience

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's experience performing similar work, with greater weight placed on work in the southern California area.

The experience of proposed subcontractors or joint venture partners will be given weight proportionate to the role proposed for the subcontractor or joint venture partner, where the proposal includes at least 5 references and contact information for the subcontractor or joint venture partner.

A satisfactory rating will be granted if the Offeror demonstrates significant experience with HVAC projects of similar scale and complexity to the work required for this contract, and significant experience with the operations and maintenance of large commercial, institutional or governmental buildingsii.

A greater than satisfactory rating will be granted where the Offeror demonstrates some combination ofiii:

(a) Substantial experience with large HVAC retrofits in southern California.

(b) Substantial prior performance contracts (whether under the federal ESPC program or otherwise) which include performance guarantees and measurement and verification requirements.

(c) A substantial portfolio of experience with operations and maintenance of large commercial, institutional or government buildings.

(d) A record or innovative practices and/or aggressive energy management in the operations and maintenance of a portfolio of commercial, institutional or government buildings.

3. Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror’s past performance. The evaluation will be a subjective assessment of how well each offeror has satisfied its customers in the past. It will not be based on absolute standards of performance. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an Offeror’s performance history, but will attribute more significance to work that was similar in nature, magnitude, and complexity to the work that will be required by the contract described in this solicitation. If an offeror has no relevantiv performance history, then the Government will give it neither a favorable nor an unfavorable evaluation, but rather a "neutral" (satisfactory) evaluation will be assigned.

The Government may base its evaluation of past performance on information that it receives from offerors and information that it obtains through its own investigation (such as the Government's Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)). The Government may contact an Offeror’s former customers and business associates; Federal, state, and local government agencies; electronic databases; and other sources of information. The Government will try to determine the Offeror’s reputation for complying with the terms of its contracts, including quality, service delivery, price, and other terms; its reputation for effective employee management and relations; its reputation for effective contract administration; and its reputation for honesty and for reasonable and cooperative behavior.

The standard is met when there is no record of poor performance, or dissatisfaction with the contractor’s performance identified.

This standard is exceeded when a consistent record of achieving high levels of satisfaction from clients, and indications that the contractor frequently exceeded the expectations of clients, i.e.

timeliness of performance/delivery, cooperation, quality of work, reasonableness of pricing of change orders or contract modifications, skills applied to the work, and customer’s overall satisfaction with the work performed.

For joint ventures, this factor will consider all joint venture partners, and will weight the influence of each partner in accordance with its percentage control of the joint venture. This factor will consider the past performance of major subcontractors proportionately to their role in the project, where the proposal describes such a major role and where at least five references with contact information have been provided for the subcontractor. In all cases there must be references for the offeror regardless of role in physical work, and the factor will consider the offeror as the party with overall responsibility for contract performance.

i It is understood that termination ceiling amounts are not a payment stream; at most only one annual amount will ever be used.

However this methodology provides an equitable method of comparing the termination ceilings of the various Offerors.

ii Large buildings are in excess of 500,000 gsf.

iii “Some combination” means some but not necessarily all of the subsequent considerations, but more of the subsequent considerations may give more weight than less of them.

iv “Relevant” means large HVAC retrofits