Evaluation_Attachment_No._7.pdf

HQ0034-15-R-0047

Evaluation Factors Attachment No. 7

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

A. Basis for Award. The evaluation will be conducted using FAR 12/ FAR 13.5, Simplified Acquisition Procedures for Certain Commercial Services. The Government will award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the best value to the Government – key personnel, quality management, past performance and price considered. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified in the evaluation factors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and past performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror being determined technically unacceptable.

The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror. The Government also reserves the right to award a contract based upon initial offers. The Government intends to award without discussions with offerors but reserves the right to have discussions with offerors if determined to be in the Government’s best interest. Proposals that contain exceptions, qualifications, or other conditions/deviations from the RFP’s terms shall not be considered or evaluated and shall be deemed ineligible for award.

B. See Attachment No. 5: Performance Work Statement (PWS) for detailed information on this requirement.

C. General. The evaluation factors will be evaluated in the order listed below. Award will be made using trade-off procedures. To be technically acceptable, the offeror must ‘pass’ factor I, key personnel, and ‘pass’ Factor II. There will be a trade-off between Factor III, price, and Factor IV, past performance. If the offeror does not have past performance, the offeror will not be evaluated acceptable or unacceptable.

Factor I: Key Personnel Factor II: Quality Management Factor III: Price Factor IV: Past Performance

VOLUME I, Factor I: Key Personnel

The Government Technical Evaluation Board shall evaluate technical acceptability on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. An offeror that receives an unacceptable rating under Factor I shall be deemed ineligible for award and shall not be further evaluated.

Offerors shall submit a maximum three (3) page resume for each of the key personnel, shown below. Key personnel must be factored into groups 1-3 of specialties as described below with one (1) overall program manager. On-site supervisors/ subject matter experts/ workers may overlap system groups if personnel are properly certified to perform the work required. Relevancy will be determined by the similarity of the project.

1. Program Manager

a. The program manager must oversee the services being provided through Groups 1-3

i. The program manager may also be an on-site supervisor but it is not required

ii. Minimum 10 years of experience related to various utility work or contract management

(any federal, private, state experience acceptable)

2. Hood Duct Specialty (Group 1)

a. On Site Supervisor

i. Must have an acceptable certification of ie: Phil Ackland Certification, International Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning Association (IKECA) or a Kitchen Exhaust Cleaners Training or Certification Program in compliance with ISO 9001.

ii. Minimum 5 years of experience related to hood duct exhaust cleaning or various utility work (any federal, private, state experience acceptable)

3. Grease Trap Specialty (Group 2)

a. On Site Supervisor

i. A licensed plumber (in any state)

ii. Minimum 10 years of experience related to various utility work (any federal, private, state experience acceptable)

4. Lift Stations Specialty (Group 3)

a. Subject Matter Expert(s)

i. Minimum 5 years of experience related to various utility work (any federal, private, state experience acceptable)

Note: Offerors are advised the Government must approve, in writing, any changes in key personnel during the period of contract performance.

The Government Technical Evaluation Board will evaluate Factor I as follows:

Rating Description

Acceptable. Met all minimum requirements “Pass”

Based on the technical review, the offeror’s proposal clearly meets the requirements.

Unacceptable. Did not meet all minimum requirements “Fail”

Based on the technical review, the offeror’s proposal does not clearly meet the requirements.

VOLUME I, Factor II: Quality Management

After the evaluation of Factor I, the Government Technical Evaluation Board shall evaluate the management approach on a pass/fail rating. An offeror that receives a ‘fail’ rating under any Subfactor(s) (A-C) in Factor II will have failed Factor II overall and shall be deemed ineligible for award and shall not be further evaluated. Offerors are encouraged to read the entire performance work statement to develop complete answers.

• Subfactor A – Cleaning Schedule & Procedures: Offerors will be evaluated on the following criteria:

o Completeness: The offeror shall describe their procedures to include the means and methods to clean the following systems effectively: Hood Ducts, Grease Traps, and Lift Stations. Offerors shall include equipment proposed, procedures proposed, and inspections proposed for each system.

Offerors shall limit responses to a maximum of three (3) pages.

o Scheduling: Offerors shall provide a drafted schedule for cleaning each system: hood ducts, grease traps, and lift stations. Offerors shall limit responses to a maximum of three (3) pages.

• Subfactor B – Quality Control Plan: Offerors shall provide a quality control plan which will be evaluated on the following criteria:

o Communication Structure: Offerors shall describe their plans to identify and correct possible performance failures during contract performance. Offerors shall limit responses to a maximum of two (2) pages.

o Emergency Response: Offerors shall describe their procedures to respond to emergencies within the required 2-hour period. Offerors shall limit responses to a maximum of two (2) pages.

• Subfactor C – Subcontracting Management Plan: Offerors shall provide a subcontracting management plan which will be evaluated on the following criteria:

o Organizational Structure: Offerors shall describe their plans to minimize potential conflicts between subcontractors performing cleaning work. Offerors shall limit responses to a maximum of two (2) pages.

o Subcontracting Participation Plan: Offerors shall identify small business(es) that will participate in performing the contract requirement through either teaming agreement or as a joint venture entity. Offerors shall describe the type of work to be performed by small business(es). Offerors shall described methods to ensure adherence to the small business participation plan. Offerors shall limit responses to a maximum of two (2) pages.

The Government Technical Evaluation Board will evaluate Factor II as follows:

Rating Description

Acceptable. Met all minimum requirements “Pass”

Based on the technical review, the offeror’s proposal clearly meets the requirements.

Unacceptable. Did not meet all minimum requirements “Fail”

Based on the technical review, the offeror’s proposal does not clearly meet the requirements.

VOLUME II, Factor III: Price

(a)The Government shall list all technically acceptable offers by price (from lowest to highest). See sections (b) through (c) below for the details of the price evaluation.

(b) The offeror shall complete the Schedule of Supplies/Services page(s) of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, Section B of the solicitation with pricing for the base and each option period.

(c) Complete blocks 12, 17, 23, 24, and 30a/b/c/ of the solicitation form. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the solicitation. Ensure that Section B of the solicitation is filled out using the proposed unit price and the extended total price per a CLIN. Offerors shall not enter pricing for IDIQ portions of the pricing (ie: CLINS 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005, & 4005). Any conditions or qualified pricing will be deemed non-responsive and shall render the offeror ineligible for award.

(d) Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT.

(e) Extension of Services: For purposes of evaluating overall price and the potential use of FAR 52.217-8, continuity of services, the government will add ½ the price of the last option period, to the offerors total proposed price for the base and option years.

(f) The offeror’s fixed price from part (e) above shall be evaluated using Section B of the solicitation, as completed by the offeror. The evaluated price shall include the total of the prices submitted for the base period and all options.

Fixed price proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness under FAR 13.106-3, “Award and Documentation” to determine if the price is fair and reasonable.

VOLUME III, Factor IV: Past Performance

(a) Finally the past performance will be evaluated as detailed below in section (b) through section (f).

(b) The Offeror’s past performance proposal must address corporate past performance in performing projects similar in size and scope to the effort required by Performance Work Statement. All projects must be recent. The projects referenced by the contractor must have been completed within five (5) years from the date of solicitation issuance or currently ongoing and have completed at least six (6) months of performance by solicitation issuance. If currently ongoing, the extent of actual performance will be considered in determining the project’s relevance. Past performance data must be received before the proposal due date for this solicitation to be considered ‘recent’. The Contractor's relevant Past Performance will be evaluated to assess the extent of its ability to perform the contract successfully (quality of product or service, accuracy and completeness, timeliness of delivery/work, business relations, customer satisfaction, key personnel and staffing, including subcontractors/partners). The evaluation will include information, not limited to, Government databases such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS).

(c) The Offeror shall submit completed Attachment #3 – Past Performance Data Sheet, the prime contract shall submit three (3) references for Government or commercial contracts for services directly related or similar to the services required in Performance Work Statement and two (2) references for each subcontractor proposed.

Relevancy is defined as a related utility service/support, complexity; and dollar value over $500,000.00 thousand.

Information for contracts or subcontracts shall be recent and relevant for contracts and subcontracts currently in process or completed within the past five (5) years from the date of solicitation issuance. The references shall specifically address the following items:

• The nature of the effort

• The tasks performed as they relate to Statement of Work

• Timeliness

• The extent of involvement (as a prime versus a subcontractor)

• The period of performance

• Point of contact, phone and email address for each contact listed

(d) The Offeror shall complete the top portion of page 1, Attachment #4 – Past Performance Questionnaire, and send it to each of the customers for the contracts identified above on Attachment #3. As stated in Attachment #3 – Performance Questionnaire, the reference will complete this form and return it directly to the Government no later than the proposal due date and time.

(e) An Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (neutral evaluation).

(f) The Government may consider past or current contracts (including Federal, State and local Government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The Government will consider information provided on problems encountered on the identified contracts and associated corrective actions. Contractors with a negative past performance rating will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies. The Government may also consider information obtained from any other sources when evaluating past performance. Failure of a contractor to disclose a relevant Government contract with poor past performance may affect the contractor's past performance rating.

(g) The Government may consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies if the predecessor’s performance is relevant to the offeror’s performance under this solicitation. The Government may also consider key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant.

Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past performance information about the offeror as a prime contractor may be considered more significant and given more weight in the past performance evaluation than that of a subcontractor.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity; and dollar value over $500,000.00 thousand

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. In conducting a performance relevancy assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

Rating Description

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offerors past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers and other sources on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings:

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offers that receive a No Confidence past performance rating shall be deemed ineligible for award regardless of price or technical acceptability.

BEST VALUE DECISION

All offers found to be technically acceptable under Factor I shall be deemed equal under Factor I. All offers found to be technically acceptable under Factor II shall be deemed equal under Factor II. All technically acceptable offers will then be ranked by price in ascending order from the lowest to highest. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is also evaluated to have a Substantial Confidence rating for Factor V – Past Performance-- that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at that point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

Offers that receive a No Confidence past performance rating shall be deemed ineligible for award regardless of price or technical acceptability.

In this evaluation, past performance is more important than price. If the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence past performance rating, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence past performance rating. Once an offeror with a Substantial Confidence rating is reached, the Source Selection Authority shall make a best value award decision (trading off Factor III – Price with Factor IV – Past Performance) amongst the offers evaluated to this point, with past performance being more important than price. No offers will be evaluated past the point where an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence past performance rating.

In the event no offeror is found to have a Substantial Confidence past performance rating, then all offers found to be technically acceptable under Factors I & II will be evaluated. The Government shall then make a best value award decision with past performance being more important than price.