Proposal_Instructions_and_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

RFP: HSFE40-16-Q-0033 29 August 2016 Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria: DC Caribbean Generator Maintenance

1 | P a g e

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR:

FEMA ON-SITE DC CARIBBEAN GENERATOR MAINTENANCE

2 | P a g e

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR

“DC CARIBBEAN GENERATOR MAINTENANCE”

Introduction:

The purpose is to acquire contract services to fulfill the requirement of maintaining all OCONUS Generators, stationed at FEMA Distribution Center (DC) Caribbean (Caguas PR). Since FEMA is tasked with responding to disasters with minimal launch time, it is essential that FEMA’s Generators be fully mission capable (FMC) at all times. In order to support FEMA’s logistical emergency needs associated with natural and man-made disasters, FEMA maintains a total fleet of 77 generators at DC Caribbean

The period of performance is for a one – six month base period, with no option year periods. It is planned that a Single Firm Fixed Priced with cost reimbursable repair CLIN contract will be awarded under the Request for Quote (RFQ) HSFE40-16-Q-0033

1. PROPOSAL FORMAT

The Government will award one (1) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, technical and non-technical factors considered. Offerors proposal will adhere to the following page limit guidance as set forth by the Government:

Format

Document Maximum Pages Allowed Factor 1: Technical Approach and Understanding

20 Pages – Microsoft Office Word format

Factor 2: Management Approach and Qualifications

15 Pages – Microsoft Office Word format, No page limit on resumes

Factor 3: Past Performance 15 Pages – Microsoft Office Word format Factor 4: Price No Limit, – Microsoft Office Excel format

Offeror shall submit a proposal following the page limitations in the table above (each side will be counted unless blank; page size 8 ½ X 11; font size no less than 11 points); margin: not less than 1 inch. If fold outs are proposed, each will be counted as two pages. Font sizes in tables or graphics are not specified but graphics and tables must easy to understand and be legible.

3 | P a g e

2. EVALUATION FACTORS:

Solicitation Evaluation Factors:

The following shall be used to evaluate offers:

SELECTION CRITERIA: The Government intends to use the ‘Best Value Tradeoff’ process as the basis for award on this requirement.

Order of Importance: The factors are placed in descending order of importance.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND UNDERSTANDING

(1) Project Work Plan and Schedule

(2) Methods and techniques for completing each task to include but not limited to:

a staffing plan and equipment to be utilized; use of other service providers

(3) Full performance and acceptability of work (4) Hazmat Environmental

Control Plan and Safety Plan

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND QUALIFICATIONS

(5) List of key personnel

(6) Organization chart

(7) Project Management Plan

(8) Quality Control Plan

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

(9) Quality of the work

(10) Customer satisfaction

(11) Timeliness of performance and the completion of the contract

NOTE: Proposals rated unsatisfactory for any of the technical factors (Factor 1 – 3) which includes Technical Approach and Understanding, Management Approach and Qualifications, or Past Performance WILL BE ELIMINATED from further consideration for contract award.

Each offeror’s proposal will be rated on an individual basis; each technical factor will be rated individually and receive an overall rating; once the technical proposal has been properly evaluated, the following proposal merit will be used to determine overall technical rating of an offerors proposal:

• Superior: Exceeds the requirements in a way which yields significant benefits to the

Government; weaknesses, if any are of small impact and NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies. Has three or more exceptional strengths.

4 | P a g e

• Good: Exceeds the requirements of the solicitation in a way that would provide benefit to the Government; has one or more strengths and weaknesses, if any are small in impact and NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

• Satisfactory: Meets all requirements; proposal offers no significant benefits beyond the stated requirements, yet NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies exist

• Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet the requirement; one or more deficiencies for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal.

Proposal Evaluation for the Non-Technical Factor of this requirement is the following:

FACTOR 4: PRICE

1. Total of all CLIN prices, including all options, to perform the required work as identified in the PWS.

Rating Definitions:

Significant Strength: An element of a proposal which significantly exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a way that is very beneficial to the Government

Strength: An element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a way beneficial to the Government

Met Requirement: An element of the proposal which is neither a strength, nor a weakness, but otherwise meets the requirements as outlined in the RFP.

Weakness: A flaw in a proposal that increases the chance of unsuccessful performance

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency: A material failure of an offer or quotation to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in an offer or quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unsatisfactory level

Omission: Something that has been left out or excluded

Risk: A risk is an aspect of a proposed approach that has the potential to negatively impact successfully meeting the Government’s needs

Clarification: A limited exchanged between the Government and an offeror under a competitively negotiated procurement that occurs when award on initial proposals is contemplated. Clarifications do not result in the submission of a revised offer or quotation.

5 | P a g e

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND UNDERSTANDING will be rated based on the following criteria:

Evaluation Criteria for Technical Approach and Understanding:

The Offeror will be evaluated on the degree to which they demonstrate the knowledge, understanding, and the technical ability to successfully perform the requirements of the PWS; and the ability to meet the requirements as described in the solicitation. Additionally, the appropriateness, soundness, and reasonableness of the offeror’s plan and problem resolution approach will be assessed. If the offeror receives a technical rating of “UNSATISFACTORY” for Volume I, Factor 1, THEY WILL BE ELIMINATED from further consideration for contract award, and neither management approach nor past performance will be evaluated.

The following elements are to be evaluated of equal importance for Technical Approach and Understanding:

Elements 1 - 4:

1. Detailed discussion of Project Work Plan and Schedule as it relates to the PWS and meeting the Governments intent of completing each service within the specified 8 day window. For this particular solicitation, the timeline has been defined as October 2016 for annual services and January 2017 for quarterly services.

(PART 6: SPECIFIC TASKS)

Evaluation Rating for Factor 1:

Technical Approach and Understanding

Rating Definition

Superior

Technical proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and approach in accordance with the PWS, and Performance Objectives that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Has three or more exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Technical proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of requirements and an approach in accordance with the PWS, and Performance Objectives that exceeds performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory

Technical proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of requirements and an approach in accordance with the PWS, and Performance Objectives that meets performance or capability standards. No strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unsatisfactory

Technical proposal fails to meet the minimum standard requirements in this solicitation in accordance with the PWS, and Performance Objectives. Technical proposals that contain one or more deficiencies may be eliminated.

6 | P a g e

2. Discussion of proposed methods and techniques for completing annual and quarterly (periodic) maintenance services and repairs; to include a detailed staffing plan and equipment to be utilized; use of other service providers as it relates to the PWS (PART 4: CONTRACTOR DELIVERABLES

4.2.1 SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS); (PART 5:

GOVERNMENT DELIVERABLES 5.2.1: GFE); (PART 6: SPECIFIC TASKS)

3. Discussion which supports how each service (Annual and quarterly) task as outlined in Part 6:

Specific Tasks will be evaluated for full performance and acceptability of work from the vendor’s perspective as it relates to the PWS.

(PART 4: CONTRACTOR DELIVERABLES 4.2 QUALITY CONTROL PLAN)

4. Discussion of Offeror’s Hazmat Environmental Control Plan and Safety Plan as it relates to the

PWS. (PART 4: CONTRACTOR DELIVERABLES 4.6 SAFETY)

NOTE: Mere statements that an Offeror can meet all requirements, without detailed supporting information, will be considered a deficiency, and therefore the offeror will be ELIMINATED from further consideration for contract award. Elements 1-4: Technical Approach and Understanding must be addressed in detail and in order.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND CAPABILITIES will be rated based on the following criteria:

Evaluation Criteria for Management Approach and Qualifications

Evaluation Rating for Factor 2:

Management Approach and Capabilities

Rating Definition

Superior

Management proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of requirements and approach in accordance with the PWS, and Performance Objectives that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Has three or more exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Management proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of requirements and approach in accordance with the PWS, and Performance Objectives that exceeds performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory

Management proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of requirements and an approach in accordance with the PWS, and Performance Objectives that meets performance or capability standards. No strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unsatisfactory

Management proposal fails to meet the minimum standard requirements in this solicitation in accordance with the PWS, and Performance Objectives. Management proposals that contain one or more deficiencies may be eliminated.

7 | P a g e

The Government will assess the Offeror’s overall proposed management approach to ensure successful performance of the requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation will consider the adequacy of key management and supervision for each functional discipline including functional responsibilities applicable procedures and reporting relationships. The government will assess the offeror’s proposed management plans and procedures that will be utilized relative to the planning and scheduling of known, new, or emergent work requirements. The government’s assessment will be based on the information the offeror provides that meet the required information in the management approach section. If the offeror receives a technical rating of “UNSATISFACTORY” for Volume I, Factor 1, THEY WILL BE ELIMINATED from further consideration for contract award, and neither management approach nor past performance will be evaluated.

The following elements are to be evaluated of equal importance for Management Approach and Qualifications:

Elements 5 - 8:

5. A list of key personnel including but not limited to Corporate Officer’s and Executives, Project Manager, Site Foreman, Quality Control Plan Manager, and Generator Mechanics. For all identified key personnel, include resumes with a description of the experience, capability, qualifications and letters of commitment for proposed new hires of the key personnel as it relates to the PWS.

(PART 4: CONTRACTOR DELIVERABLES 4.4.2 KEY PERSONNEL)

6. An organization chart showing lines of authority, responsibility, and communication for management, supervisory, and technical personnel for each site and as a whole. Indicate what job classifications will be accomplishing the work items. Personnel management information such as hiring/firing authority, discipline, incentive plans, etc., shall also be addressed. Offeror’s shall include documentation of personnel experience with various makes and models as outlined in the

PWS.

(ATTACHMENT 4: CARIBBEAN FLEET INVENTORY dated 26 August 2016)

7. A Project Management Plan that is simple, easy to read and clearly describes the responsibilities of key personnel that will be dedicated to the project communication and coordination plans, scheduling of all known, surge or emergent work requirements, meetings, and deliverables, the selection process of subcontractors, percentage of work that will be contracted out, and the management plan developed for monitoring subcontractors work quality and schedule.

(PART 4: CONTRACTOR DELIVERABLES 4.4.2 KEY PERSONNEL)

8. A Quality Control Plan (QCP), that at minimum sets forth the procedures for self-inspecting the quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and other performance requirements in the

PWS.

(PART 4: CONTRACTOR DELIVERABLES 4.2 QUALITY CONTROL PLAN)

NOTE: Mere statements that an Offeror can meet all requirements, without detailed supporting information, will be considered a deficiency and therefore the offeror will be ELIMINATED from further consideration for contract award. Element 5-8: Management Approach and Capabilities must be addressed in detail, and in order.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE, will be rated on the following criteria:

Evaluation Rating for Factor 3:

Past Performance

Rating Definition

8 | P a g e

Neutral

No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating. No Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), past first-hand knowledge of offerors performance, or a search conducted by the government was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the offeror, key personnel, or subcontractors. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

Superior

Based on the offeror’s past performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is not likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluation Criteria for Past Performance The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s relevant past performance. The government will consider the relevance of past performance information obtained in relation to the scope of this procurement with respect to similar efforts considering such factors as length of scope, number, complexity, and diversity of contracts completed by the firm. Past Performance, either positive or negative, which is considered by the Government to be more closely related to the scope of this effort, will be given additional weight in the evaluation process.

The Offeror shall identify three (3) contracts/orders with the Federal Government or Industry that demonstrates recent and relevant past performance. Recent is defined as within the last three (3) years;

relevant is defined as similar work in complexity and magnitude to the work identified in this solicitation. For each identified contract/order that demonstrates relevant past performance, offeror’s are to have the Agency/Organization/Company submit the Past Performance Questionnaire (ATTACHMENT 8). The following information should be included on offerors submission of past performance:

1. Project Title

2. Description of the Project

3. Contract/Task Order Number

4. Contract/Task Order Amount

5. Government Agency/Organization

6. COR’s name, address, telephone number and email address

7. Contracting Officer’s name, address, telephone number and email address

8. Current status, e.g. completed and/or in progress, start and estimated completion dates

9. A brief narrative of why your company believes this reference is relevant to the solicitation.

10. Timeliness of performance and the final completion of the contract

If no past performance is submitted for the offeror, the Government may research federal (CPARS and PPIRS), state, local and commercial sources to determine past contract performance. Additionally, evaluators may use past contract experience and knowledge of an offeror’s past performance.

9 | P a g e

The following elements of an offereor past performance (via PPQ or past evaluator knowledge) and will be evaluated of equal importance:

(9) Quality of the Offeror’s work

(10) Customer satisfaction

(11) Timeliness of performance and the completion of the contract.

FACTOR 4: PRICE

The Government will evaluate the total overall price to determine price reasonableness. Offeror shall provide their total proposed labor mix including labor categories, labor hours and any other pertinent information to illustrate how you will meet all the requirements contained in the SOW. Prices quoted shall be fully burdened with overhead, general and administrative (G&A), and profit.

The offeror’s price proposal will not be adjectivally rated, but will be evaluated to assess reasonableness, completeness, and whether the proposed price reflects an understanding of the SOW requirements.

The price evaluation may include but not limited the following:

• Comparison of the offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates/firm fixed prices with Independent

Government Cost Estimate.

• Comparison of the offeror’s proposed price against the historical price.