Instructions_and_evaluation_criteria_REV_3_March_20_2013.pdf

Solicitation # GS-09P-12-KS-C-0023 Revised March 20, 2013

1 | P a g e

PROPOSALS

Proposals are due by email to Thuy.Ta@gsa.gov not later than 4:00PM Pacific time, Wednesday, March 27, 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 (See B.1)

2. Technical narratives for each Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM), to include any additional details or deviations from the measures.

3. Job References

4. Bid Guarantee, using Standard Form 24

5. Sub- Contracting Plan

6. Proposed Organization and Management Plan for Operation & Maintenance

(O&M) Narratives

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 EEMs, 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 be grounds for exclusion but that determination at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. 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 http://www.sam.gov/

2 | P a g e

C. Energy Efficiency Measure (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. Job References

Offerors will be evaluated based on relevant Experience and Past Performance on similar work, as further define on Page 7 and 8. Therefore, each Offeror is to submit a minimum of ten separate references, as follows:

(i) a minimum of five references for relevant 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 at 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. Work experience performed in Southern California to the requirement of this solicitation is preferred; and

(ii) a minimum of 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.

More than five references in each category may help support the Offeror's evaluation.

References must include current contact information to reach knowledgeable client representatives.

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.

3 | P a g e

F. 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.

G. Price Reasonableness

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

H. Unbalanced Prices

All offers must include balanced prices.

4 | P a g e

EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will make award to the Offeror whose offer conforms to the Solicitation and offers the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The price evaluation factor is more important than the non-price evaluation factors, when combined.

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.

The price evaluation factor is more important than the non-price evaluation factors when combined.

A. PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Single Price Factor Calculation of fully evaluated price

Not applicable

B. NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor/Sub-factor Description Relative Importance

Factor 1

Energy Efficiency Measurement (EEM) Narratives

- Factor 1 is of equal importance to Factor 2

Factor 2

Proposed Organization and Management Plan for O&M Narratives

- Factor 2 is of equal importance to Factor 1.

- Factor 2 is more importance than Factor 3

Factor 3

Experience

- Factor 3 is less importance than Factor 1 and Factor 2.

- Factor 3 is of equal importance to Factor 4

Factor 4

Past Performance

- Factor 4 is less importance than Factor 1 and Factor 2.

- Factor 4 is of equal importance to Factor 3.

5 | P a g e

A. PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

There is a single price factor, which will result in calculation of a fully evaluated price as follows:

1. All payment streams to A + B + C + D (defined below) will be run in the building life-cycle cost (BLCC) application with the appropriate discount factor (3%) and standard inflation escalators to determine the net present value (NPV) in comparison to a base case defined under E below. Savings from project financing for purposes of NPV calculation will be guaranteed savings, not estimated savings.

A: All O&M payments to include all options as defined in the section B.8 Price Schedule. A 2% escalation will be applied to the Government’s base year estimate to produce estimates for future years. The 3% discount factor will apply.

B: All financing related payments as proposed in Schedule 3.

C: 5% of the difference between the principal balance as of the anniversary date of each performance year and the cancellation ceiling from Schedule 5. This will be treated in the BLCC calculation as a proxy payment stream to reflect discounted costs to the Government of early cancellation; the 5% is a risk factor that termination might happen in any given year.

D: The CLIN 6001 Standard Coefficient (from the section B.8 Price Schedule) will be multiplied by $2,250,000 for year three, and by $250,000 for all other years, and treated as a payment stream subject to 3% discount factor. This is also a proxy payment stream meant to estimate cost to the Government for markup on subcontracts, supplies and materials for O&M Additional Services and for the Phase 2 EEMs (estimated to be accomplished in year three).

E. Baseline will consist of Government estimate O&M costs using a 2% escalation from the base year estimate, and a do-nothing energy measure base case.

If pricing does not meet the statutory requirement for guaranteed savings to exceed financing payments for the energy measures then the pricing factor evaluation will be “unacceptable” and the Offeror will not be awarded a contract.

If pricing of energy measures requires the Government to provide funding other than regular financing payments or O&M payments then the pricing factor evaluation will be “unacceptable” and the Offeror will not be awarded a contract as the Government does not have such funds available.

If required schedules are incomplete and cannot be corrected with minor clarifications then the pricing factor evaluation will be “unacceptable” and the Offeror will not be awarded a contract (unless permitted to be corrected in negotiations if negotiations are opened).

6 | P a g e

B. NON-PRICE EVALUTION FACTORS

There will be four non-price evaluation factors. See table on page 4 for relative importance.

1. Energy Efficiency Measure (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 “good” rating may be granted where criteria for “satisfactory” are met and there is 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.

An “excellent" rating may be granted where criteria for a “good” rating are met and there is evidence of substantial additional energy or energy cost savings to the Government from enhancement of the energy measures with a high degree of confidence to the Government evaluators, based on the narrative, that such savings will actually be achieved.

2. Proposed Organization and Management Plan for O&M Narratives

This factor considers the overall management strategy to be employed by the offeror in accomplishing the O&M portion of the requirement. The factor assesses the offeror’s personnel, organization and management.

Narratives will be evaluated for:

(a) Adequacy of staffing in terms of both total personnel and particular skills.

(b) Management and supervision of staff

(c) Arrangements for off-site technical and engineering support

A “marginal” rating will be granted where the Offeror proposes a staffing and management/supervision level that is likely to result in most contract requirements being met but with significant deficiencies. Historical staffing levels with past experience of O&M contractors at

7 | P a g e the 300 N. Los Angeles Street/Roybal facilities will be used as a general benchmark but will not set an absolute standard.

A “satisfactory” rating will be granted where the Offeror proposes a staffing and management/supervision level that is sufficient in terms of total personnel and particular skills to maintain and operate the building in compliance with contract requirements, with little risk of substantial performance deficiencies. Historical staffing levels with past experience of O&M contractors at the 300 N. Los Angeles Street/Roybal facilities will be used as a general benchmark but will not set an absolute standard.

An “excellent” rating will be granted where the Offeror meets the requirements for a “satisfactory” rating and also demonstrates substantial support off-site services to include engineering and technical capability available to support and enhance the O&M operation.

3. Experience

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

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 experience of major subcontractors proportionately to their role in the project, where the proposal describes such a major role and where at least five (5) 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.

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 buildingsi.{ (i) Large buildings are in excess of 500,000 gsf. }

A “excellent” rating may be granted where criteria for a “satisfactory” rating are met and the Offeror demonstrates some combination ofii: {(ii)“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}

(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.

8 | P a g e

4. 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. Offerors without any past performance on relevantiii performance history or whose references cannot be contacted will be given neither a favorable or unfavorable (neutral) rating for this factor.{(iii) 1 “Relevant” means large HVAC retrofits}

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.

For joint ventures, this factor will consider all joint venture partners, and will weigh 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.

A “satisfactory” or “neutral” rating may be granted when there is no record of poor performance, or dissatisfaction with the contractor’s performance identified; or where there is no relevant experience to evaluate.

A “excellent” rating may be granted when the standard for a “satisfactory” rating is met and the Offeror demonstrates 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. There may be minor deviations from a pattern of high performance (although no poor performance).