NMACC_Draft_Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

Proposals will be evaluated as set forth below. The number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors.

M.2 EVALUATION PROCESS FOR PHASE I PROPOSALS

The evaluation process for Phase I essentially consists of three parts: proposal compliance review, technical/quality evaluation, and rating.

a. Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial check by the Contracting Division of the SSEB on the basis of the solicitation requirements. Upon receipt of the offers, the KO will screen each offer with the objective of determining if they respond to the requirements of the solicitation. Rating is not to be conducted at this time. If the KO determines that any offer has material omissions and fails to provide information required by the solicitation for evaluation then the offer will be deficient on its face. The KO will document the file if an offer is eliminated from consideration without further review. During preliminary review by the SSEB, a list of any additional information required from the contractor will be compiled and forwarded to the KO. The KO will determine what action is required and, as necessary, obtain information from the vendors in writing.

b. Technical/Quality Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate only thos e proposals passing the Proposal Complia nce Review. Technical/quality evaluation consists of an evaluation and quality rating of Phase I, Volume I. Upon completion of the technical/quality evaluations, a maximum of fifteen (15) most highly qualified offerors will be requested to submit Phase II proposals.

c. Maximum Number of Highly Qualified Offerors: The maximum number of highly qualified offerors shall not exceed fifteen (15) unless the Contracting Officer determines that a number greater than fifteen (15) is in the Government’s best interest and is consistent with the purpose and objectives of two phase design-build contracting.

M.3 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR PHASE I PROPOSALS

General: Evaluation factors are listed in descending order. Where subfactors are identified, they are approximately equal to each other. The SSEB will evaluate and quality rate, Volume 1 of Phase I proposals in the areas (factors) listed in descending order of importance below:

VOLUME 1 - PHASE I PROPOSALS - The SSEB will evaluate the qualifications in the factors listed below. Phase I Proposals are limited to no more than 55 pages. The following narrative describes each factor and subfactor:

Factor 1: Corporate Experience (TAB 1-A):

(Page limit: 40 pages (each Experience Information Form shall not exceed 2 pages))

A. Construction Team

1. Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects for the Team that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. Projects submitted shall be completed within the past six (6) years of the date of issuance of this RFP and be between $4M to $100M.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. A relevant construction project is defined as a project under the NAICS code 236220.

2. Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) projects valued in the price range from $4M to $100M, completed or ongoing by your Team within the past 5 years to demonstrate experience in waterfront construction to include piers, wharfs, and docks.

Please include a detailed description with each project that explains the scope of work.

Indicate if the effort was Design-Bid-Build or Design-Build.

3. Submit up to a maximum of three (3) projects that the construction and design team have performed together within the past 10 years. A higher rating will be given to projects of similar size and complexity to the RFP. Please include a detailed description with each project that explains the scope of work performed, sustainable building efforts, and relevancy to the above criteria. Indicate if the effort was Design-Bid-Build or Design- Build. A higher rating will be assigned to Design-Build performance. If the Construction and design team have not performed together, state so.

B. Design Team

1. Submit a list of A/E firm(s) who will be utilized as the design team for this contract. The list shall include company name (no abbreviations), address, phone number, and DUNS number. Identify projected role of the firm(s) in the design.

2. Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant projects designed by the design team to demonstrate experience in the design similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP. These projects may be the same projects submitted under a and b above. Please provide the following information for each project:

A/E Firm

Project Title Project location Contract Number Date of Design Services Estimated Construction Cost Project Description – Including permitting, sustainable design concepts Work accomplished by Design Firm Extent of Designer of Record participation during construction Customer Point of Contact (Name, Organization, Address, Telephone, Fax, and Email)

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP. Offerors shall submit a completed Experience Information Form (EIF) not to exceed two (2) pages. The offeror may choose the format of the EIF; however, each EIF shall include the following at a minimum:

The Offeror’s Name

Project Title Contract Number Contract Completion Date Contract Amount Contract Duration Description of the Project’s Scope and Magnitude Project Location Customer Information to include:

Name of Customer/Owner Name of Point of Contract Contact Phone Number Contact Email Address

Type of work – New Construction, Renovation, Repair or Alteration Type of Contract – Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build or Other (explain) A description of the designer’s involvement during the construction phase of the job.

Offerors are responsible for providing project descriptions in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of project relevancy and may provide additional descriptive information beyond what is required in the above list. One page of photographs per project may be provided in order to provide clarity to the project description and do not count against the page limit per EIF.

If an Offeror is using experience information of an affiliate, subsidiary, or parent that is not the name as exactly stated on the SF1442, the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate, subsidiary, or parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract.

Basis of Evaluation:

The offeror will be evaluated based on the extent of its demonstration of relevant corporate experience including construction and design firm’s projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the NMACC.

Factor 2 - Design/Build Management Approach (TAB 1-B):

(Page Limit: No more than 4 pages)

Describe your management approach, process and strategies for a typical Design-Build project that demonstrates your understanding and experience in a Design-Build execution, from contract award through construction completion. The narrative shall include, but not be limited to, a description of how in the past you coordinated between the design and construction teams, and the following:

a) Designers: Describe the responsibility of the designer(s) during the construction phase. Describe the step by step process of the development and submission of design/construction documents.

b) On-Site Design-Construct Management: Describe the on-site design-construct management approach to coordinating design and construction issues. If any functions were handled by subcontractors, describe those subcontractors and how you managed them.

c) Quality Control: Describe quality control in and between all identified firms/teams/subcontractors on this project.

Basis of Evaluation:

The offeror will be evaluated based on the extent the offeror demonstrates their ability to manage Design-Build project execution, from contract award through construction completion.

Factor 3 – Capacity to Support DHS/Coast Guard (TAB 1-C) (Page Limit: 4 Pages)

In a narrative describe the following items:

a) Offeror’s ability to support the DHS/Coast Guard’s area of responsibility to include the 50 states, its territories, and the Bahamas.

b) Offeror’s ability to support the DHS/Coast Guard’s work within your current customer base and current workload.

c) Offeror’s ability to respond to multiple concurrent DHS/Coast Guard task order procurements within your current customer base.

d) How the Offeror will properly resource and optimize the team working the DHS/Coast Guard’s workload with other customer’s workload.

e) Provide a letter from a surety (approved on Department of Treasury Department Circular 570) acknowledging the offeror’s ability to receive single project performance and payment bonds in the amount of up to $70,000,000 and similar aggregate bonding capacity of $100,000,000 or more.

Basis of Evaluation:

Offerors will be assessed on the extent they demonstrate their ability to support the DHS/Coast Guard’s workload within the entire United States, Puerto Rico, Guam and OCONUS, ability to respond to concurrent task order procurements, properly resourcing of DHS/CG workload, and ability to effectively demonstrate bonding capacity.

Factor 4 - Past Performance Factor (TAB 1-D):

(Not counted towards overall page limitation)

All projects submitted under Factor 1 corporate experience need to have a corresponding past performance submission in the form of a completed CPARS evaluation or Past Performance Questionnaire. The Offeror may submit a Past Performance Questionnaire used in a previous procurement or use the Past Performance Questionnaire at Appendix A. If a completed CPARS evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation, a client completed Past Performance questionnaire in the prescribed format or substantially similar needs to be submitted.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance including Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

Basis of Evaluation:

The government will assess the quality of the offeror’s (construction and design team) past performance by determining how well the contractor performed on the submitted relevant contracts and other related past performance information.

The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and projects completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to how well a contractor has performed on the projects.

Factor 5 – Safety Strategy and DART Rating (TAB 1-E) (Page Limit – 1 page)

In a narrative discuss the offeror’s safety strategy and present the Prime’s and major subcontractor(s)’ OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate for the three previous complete calendar years [2013, 2014, 2015], as defined by the U.S.

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Discuss any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element.

Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower OSHA DART rates and upward trends will receive a higher adjectival rating while higher OSHA DART rates and downward trends will receive a lower adjectival rating.

Offeror’s OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates will be evaluated against the following standards:

Risk DART Very High Greater than 4.0

High From 2.75 to 4.0

Moderate From 1.25 to 2.74

Low From 0.50 to 1.24

Very Low Less than 0.50

Offeror’s DART rates will be evaluated against the following standards:

Risk DART Very High Greater than 2.0

High From 1.0 to 2.0

Moderate From 0.50 to 0.99

Low From 0.25 to 0.49

Very Low Less than 0.25

Factor 6 - Organization and Key Positions Experience and Qualifications (TAB 1-F) (Page Limit: No more than 6 pages. Organizational Chart does not count towards page count)

The offeror must fully identify and describe its organization and key positions (not personnel) proposed to manage and execute a task order’s design and construction, in narrative form and in an organizational chart.

The offeror must demonstrate that it has the necessary structure and resources within its organization to manage, control and administer the design and construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts. This must be achievable with other projected on-going work.

The offeror must propose a specific team, including specific design firms, all of which will be evaluated and rated.

Narrative: Address each of the following items:

a. Identity: If an offeror is proposing as a joint venture, identify the individual firms, and describe the nature of the association. Clearly identify contractual responsibilities of each firm and the work to be performed by each. Provide a copy of the joint venture agreement (not counted towards page limitation).

If you are a construction contractor and elect to team with an Architect-Engineer or multiple design firms for the design, the narrative shall clearly identify all firms and contractual responsibilities established between all firms. Identify your previous Design- Build experiences and associations with these firms. Provide a copy of the Teaming Agreement (not counted towards page limitation).

b. Home Office Support: The organization must provide for a single position, with decisional authority, responsible for both design and construction. Describe the home office organization, responsibilities and lines of authority established for this Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Design-Build contract. Describe your capability and commitment to support the design and on-site management team.

c. Construction Organization: Describe your resources available to support this Design-

Build project concurrently with other projected on-going or new work. Explain why your construction firm(s) is especially qualified to undertake this IDIQ Design-Build contract.

d. Design Organization: Describe the organization, responsibilities and lines of authority established to complete the design. Describe the resources available to support and accomplish this design concurrently with other projected on-going or new work. Explain why your design firm(s) is especially qualified to undertake this IDIQ Design-Build contract.

e. Organization Chart: Provide a project organization chart depicting the proposed organization, which will manage and execute the design and construction described in the narrative. Arrange the chart by organizational levels and location, depicting lines of authority, review and submission of design. Clearly delineate on-site from off-site personnel.

f. Key Positions: Submit data showing the required qualifications and experience of each key position within the Program Management of this contract. (Do not submit resumes)

The offeror will be evaluated on their ability to put into place the necessary structure and resources within its organization to manage, control and administer the design and construction operations, quality control program and subcontracts.

Offerors will be assessed on the extent their ability to effectively demonstrate the identified capabilities and approach to optimized team formation. The Government intends to select no more than fifteen (15) offerors to submit proposals for Phase II. However, the Government reserves the right to select fewer than fifteen (15) offerors for Phase II. Selection will be based on the proposals determined to be the most highly qualified in response to the stated criteria.

EVALUATION PROCESS FOR PHASE II PROPOSALS

The Phase II evaluation process essentially consists of four parts: proposal compliance review, technical/quality evaluation, price evaluation, and price/technical trade-off analysis.

Performance risk will be considered in the evaluation.

a. Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial check by the Contracting Division of the SSEB on the basis of solicitation requirements. This review may eliminate those proposals which fail to provide all required information and documents in the format and detail specified. This review is to ensure that all required information is complete.

b. Technical/Quality Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate only those proposals passing the first review, above. Technical/quality evaluation consists of an evaluation and quality rating of Phase II evaluation factors, Volume I.

c. Price Evaluation: The Government will initially evaluate price independently from the technical evaluation. The Contracting Officer will evaluate price. The seed project, will be used for the price evaluation. Each offer in Phase II will be independently reviewed and analyzed using the principles established in FAR Subpart 15.404 Contract Pricing to provide a basis for establishing reasonableness. The report will be prepared by the Contract Specialist and will contain the following: 1) a list of omissions by the offers or questions to be clarified with the offerors, if any; 2) a description of discussions, if made;

3) a table listing the Government estimate and the company name and address of each offer along with the proposed prices, and 4) a determination of price reasonableness.

Phase II offers that are significantly higher or lower than the Government’s estimate may be considered an indication that the offeror does not understand the requirement and may be evaluated as posing a significant performance risk.

d. Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After the price analysis and technical/quality evaluations are complete, the Government will then consider the price in connection with the technical/quality evaluation to determine the proposal offering the most advantage to the Government. The Government will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of the technical proposals and compare prices. The trade-off analysis will be conducted upon completion of the quality/price evaluations of final proposal revisions, if discussions are necessary, or after evaluation of initial offers, if discussions will not be necessary. Some trade- off considerations are usually part of the process of determining which firms will be included in the competitive range for discussions, if discussions are necessary.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR PHASE II PROPOSALS

General: The Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate and quality rate Volume 2 of Phase II proposals in the areas (factors and subfactors) listed below. Phase II Factor 1 Technical Approach subfactor a, Means and Method, is more important than subfactor b, Sustainability.

Phase II Factor 1, Technical Approach and Factor 2, Cost Estimation are approximately equal.

Factor 1 and 2 when combined are more important than Factor 3, Small Business Subcontracting Participation. Price will be evaluated on the basis of a seed project during Phase II. The financial statements and other submitted documentation, which is part of Volume 3 will not be rated, but may be considered in evaluating performance risk.

VOLUME 2 - PHASE II TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

The SSEB will evaluate the proposal in the factors listed below. Phase II Proposals are limited to no more than 20 pages for the technical factor. The following narrative describes each factor and subfactor:

Factor 1: Technical Approach (TAB 2-A)

(Page Limitation – 20 pages)

1. Subfactor A: Means & Methods

The Offeror shall discuss their execution strategy for the seed project. The Offeror’s narrative shall include but not be limited to the following:

a. Provide a conceptual design, to include an elevation drawing, consistent with the seed project Request for Proposal.

b. Execution strategies, process and approach as they relate to this particular project’s project site requirements and FAA design guidelines for proposed facilities;

c. Discussion of meeting project air leakage requirements as it relates to the overall building envelope, in particular large industrial bay openings;

2. Subfactor b: Sustainability

a. The minimum level of LEED certification is “Certified”. The Offeror’s proposal shall indicate what LEED credits they propose to obtain in order to achieve that level. Provide in depth discussion on proposed LEED credits.

b. Discuss strategies for optimizing overall building thermal performance in high bay area.

c. Address frequency, cost and ease of maintenance, sustainable design features and strategies, considering life cycle cost.

Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluation will be based upon the Offeror’s Designer demonstrating a sound approach working with FAA guidelines. The Offeror’s concept design will be evaluated based on a subjective assessment of the Offeror’s understanding of the project scope and the extent to which it meets or exceeds requirements. The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated to determine the manner and extent to which the Offeror’s proposed solutions and approach will meet or exceed the government’s objectives as described in the specifications and the requirements in the RFP. The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the risks associated with the program are identified and mitigated against in the Offeror’s proposed solution.

Factor 2: Cost Estimation

Provide up to a two page narrative describing your cost estimating processes and capabilities and the methodologies that you use to develop price proposals. Provide a price breakdown of the seed project price in the categories outlined below. The price breakdown is provided to demonstrate the contractor’s ability to accurately and thoroughly identify project costs in a systematic manner. The breakdown will also be used to assess the extent to which it demonstrates an understanding of the seed project requirements.

• General Conditions

• Material

• Equipment

• Labor

• Overhead

• Profit

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to cost estimation by assessing that it was logically derived, conveys a thorough understanding of the work required, and provides a reasonable approximation of the costs. The depiction of total price in this estimate will not be used as the price for purposes of the trade-off analysis. The offeror’s binding price will be that submitted in the price schedule, consistent with the Price evaluation factor.

Volume 3: PHASE II NON-TECHNICAL, PRICE AND PRE-AWARD SURVEY

Factor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Participation (Tab 3-A)

The United States Coast Guard has established subcontracting goals of at least 35.5% of the subcontracted effort to small businesses. Of the total subcontracted effort, the targets are a minimum of 10.0% to Small Disadvantage Business (SDB) firms, 5.0% to Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) firms, 3% to Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone) firms, and 3% to Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) firms. All firms will be evaluated against the above targets with more credit given to firms that exceed these targets.

1. Large Business offerors shall address the following:

a. Identify, in terms of dollar value and percentage of total proposed price, the extent of work you will perform as the prime contractor.

b. Submit with your proposal, a subcontracting plan for this project which shall include the total contract value (including all option periods), the dollar value and percent of the total subcontracted effort including the effort to LB, SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, and HUBZone firms. If the firm commitments to subcontract exist, list the subcontractors by name. Otherwise, list the type of services to be subcontracted.

2. Small Business offerors shall address the following:

a. Identify, in terms of dollar value and percentage of total proposed price, the extent of work you will perform as the prime contractor.

b. State the extent of work, including type and percentages; you plan to subcontract to LB, SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, and Hubzone firms. Small business offerors are not required to submit subcontracting plans.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s subcontracting plan in regards to presentation of facts, details, and narrative identifying strategy to meet or exceed the Government’s Small Business goals.

Factor 4 – Price (Tab 3-B)

Submit the task order price in accordance with the price schedule issued with Phase II of the

RFP.

Basis of Evaluation:

The total evaluated price will be calculated by summing the total for the base and any applicable options. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to evaluate the overall price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

A. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation B. Comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.

C. Comparison of proposed pricing obtained through market research, parametric estimating methods, or historical information.

Phase II offers that are significantly higher or lower than the Government’s estimate may be considered an indication that the offeror does not understand the requirement and may be evaluated as posing a significant performance risk.

Phase I evaluation ratings will be carried forward into Phase II and considered in the final best value determination for contract award. Phase I and Phase II Technical Factors and Non-technical Factors when combined, are more important than price. As technical solutions become more equal, price may become more important than technical.

The Government does not intend to go out for Final Proposal Revisions. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4) the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award of a task order without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the best terms.

The Government will award a firm fixed-price contract task order to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most advantageous to the Government, considering price and all evaluation factors.

PRE-AWARD SURVEY.(Tab 3-C)

The Contracting Officer will perform a pre-award survey to determine the apparent awardees responsibility by performing a financial analysis and compliance with subcontracting plans submitted on previous contracts. The offeror will be requested to submit the following in Phase II and label it as – Pre-award Survey”:

1. Submit the last three year’s financial statements (2015, 2014, and 2013). The statements must include, at a minimum, a Balance sheet and Income Statement. This information will be treated confidentially but may be checked for verification.

Offerors are advised that the Government may contact potential contractors to ascertain their capabilities to perform the work specified in this solicitation. The Government will ascertain the offeror’s capabilities to perform the work specified in this solicitation by reviewing financial statements and credit rating checks, the Government may visit a prospective contractor's facility(s). Areas of interest on this survey may include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) performance plans.

(b) quality assurance and control plans.

(c) personal recruitment and training plans.

(d) workload factors for manpower utilization.

(e) management plan for handling peak workloads.

(f) production capability.

(i) plant facilities, equipment, and labor resources.

(ii) purchasing and subcontracting.

(iii)performance record and ability to meet delivery schedules.

Offerors are advised that accomplishment of this survey is part of the evaluation process and is not be construed as an indication that an offeror will receive or is in the best position to receive the resultant award.

2. Submit the information described below to demonstrate Past Performance on Utilization of

Small Businesses:

a) Large Business Offerors Shall Address The Following:

(1) Provide information on any awards you received within the past three years for outstanding support to HUBZone, SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, or HBCU/MI.

(2) Provide SF294’s “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” for all contracts referenced under Phase I, Corporate Experience, Factor 1 or any other documentation showing compliance with HUBZone, SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, and if applicable, HBCU/MI. Include the dollar value percentage of work (of total contract value) subcontracted to LB, HUBZone, SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB firms, and if applicable, HBCU/MI for each. If targets were not met on submitted contracts, provide an explanation as to why. Provide an explanation for an SF294 not submitted for a contract referenced in Factor 1.

(3) Provide information on existing or pending mentor-protégé agreements.

(4) Provide information, if available, on use of Community Rehabilitation Programs certified under the Javits Wagner O’Day Program (JWOD) by NISH or NIB.

b) Small Business Offerors Shall Address The Following:

(1) Provide information on any awards you received within the past three years for outstanding support to HUBZone, SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB, or HBCU/MI.

(2) Include the dollar value percentage of work (of total contract value) subcontracted to LB, HUBZone, SB, SDB, WOSB, SDVOSB firms, and if applicable, HBCU/MI for each contract referenced in Phase I, Corporate Experience, Factor 1. If targets were not met on submitted contracts, provide an explanation as to why. If subcontracting was not used on submitted contracts, provide an explanation as to why for each category.

(3) Provide information on existing or pending mentor-protégé agreements.

(4) Provide information, if available, on use of Community Rehabilitation Programs certified under the Javits Wagner O’Day Program (JWOD) by NISH or NIB.

SECTION M