Attachment_7_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Solicitation HQ0034-14-R-0050 Attachment No. 7 Evaluation Criteria

Basis for Award

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best overall value to the Government when all non-price and price-related evaluation factors are considered. Non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

The Government may award on the basis of a proposal with superior ratings even though it may result in a higher price to the Government. Price may become more important in the evaluation and award as the ratings under the non-price factors become more equal.

Pursuant to FAR 52.212-1(g), Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (JUL 2013), the Government may evaluate offers and award without discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

Relative Importance of the Evaluation Factors

Within Factor 1, all sub-factors are of equal importance.

Factors 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance.

When combined, the non-price factors (1, 2, and 3) are significantly more important than price (Factor 4).

Evaluation Factors

Award selection will be made in accordance with FAR 12.203 and this attachment to the RFP.

In selecting the best overall offer, the following factors will be considered: (1) technical, (2) key personnel, (3) past performance, and (4) price to the Government. A “fail” or “unacceptable” rating under any factor or subfactor or a No Confidence under the past performance factor shall render the entire proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award. At its discretion, the Government may elect to cease evaluating a proposal after a single “unacceptable,” “fail” or “No Confidence” rating under any factor or sub-factor.

(1) Technical Factor

Technical sub-factors will be assigned a rating in accordance with the table below. A final, overall technical rating will be assigned based on the combined sub-factor ratings. This overall rating will be utilized to determine award.

The following four (4) sub-factors are weighted equally under Factor 1:

A. Adequacy, Feasibility, and Technical Merit - The offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated on the offeror’s understanding, knowledge, and capability to perform each task in the statement of work, how the offeror’s technical knowledge of each task area will be applied under this proposed contract, and how that technical knowledge will be beneficial to WHS.

B. Technical Experience - The offeror’s technical experience and the technical experience of all proposed Key Personnel and subcontractors in providing technical support to programs of similar size, scope, and complexity to WHS’s requirement, will be evaluated based on the complexity of the experience, the size of the experience, and the scope of the experience, as it relates to the statement of work.

C. Training Program – The evaluation of this subfactor will consider the relevant experience and ability of the current management structure and organization and changes to the organization along with the operations for managing performance of the contract.

Evaluation will consider the ability of the offeror to establish organizational controls and procedures to ensure a safe and hazard free work environment. A drafted training program should be submitted for evaluation which at minimum describes hands-on training areas and major components of the training.

D. Quality Control Plan – The offeror’s plan must be specific to this project to include industry standards relevant to this contract. The plan must demonstrate how the offeror will meet the requirements of the SOW. Consideration shall be given to whether the offeror has achieved certification or whether it is pursuing certification.

(2) Key Personnel Factor

Key personnel will be rated on a Pass/Fail basis. The proposed key personnel will be evaluated based on how they meet the requirements below.

Key Personnel are considered to be:

1. P.E. Civil/Structural Engineer- 10 years of documented experience in civil/structural design and installation of fall protection systems

2. Inspector (Licensed) – 10 years experience documented in roofing fall protection systems inspections

3. Fall Protection Certified Training Personnel – 10 years documented experience in developing, managing, and/or teaching OSHA certified programs.

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.

(3) Past Performance Factor

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

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. A relevant project for this RFP is defined as:

- A contract for civil/structural engineering of fall protection systems with tasks and deliverables similar to the RFP performance work statement

- The minimum contract value is at least $100,000.00

- The offeror is the prime contractor or the offeror’s predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. The offeror’s performance as a prime contractor may be considered more relevant or significant in the evaluation than a subcontractor’s.

To be recent, the contract performance must have occurred within the 60 months preceding the date of the initial proposal submission deadline or if performance is ongoing work must have been performed under the contract for at least six months prior to the initial proposal due date.

Relevance shall be assigned a rating in the following table:

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 offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s quality of performance on its previous and/or current, relevant projects by using one or a combination of the following methods:

- Past performance information provided by the offeror. This includes questionnaires (Attachment 4) that are returned by references as well as Government attempts to contact the references by phone or email. The Government may, but is not required to, attempt to contact the references. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that references return the questionnaires.

- Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases.

- The Contracting Officer’s knowledge of the offeror’s past performance.

- Interviews with other Government or commercial personnel not provided by the offeror

Information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement may be considered. However, the offeror’s performance as a prime contractor will be considered more relevant and be weighted more heavily in the overall past performance evaluation. For those offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating. Offerors with a negative past performance rating will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to address those deficiencies.

(4) Price Factor

Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal.

Reasonableness may be based on one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 13.203 including, but not limited to, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and/or comparison to other offers. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.203.

For evaluation purposes, the total price submitted for the base period and all option periods will be combined to create one overall “combined” contract price. The combined contract price will be considered the contractor’s proposed price in response to this solicitation and will be evaluated for reasonableness.