Instructions_and_Evaluations_Factor.pdf

HSFE40-16-R-0008

RFP Instructions and Evaluation Factors - Page 1 of 6

Proposal Organization

Volume Page Limit (double sided)

Volume I: Factor 1 – Technical Approach and Understanding 20 in MS Word format

Volume I:Factor 2 – Management Approach and Qualifications 15 in MS Word format

Volume I: Factor 3 – Past Performance 15 in MS Word format

Volume II: Factor 4 – Price - Any rate proposed shall be a fully burdened rate.

Completed Price Schedule and submit in excel format.

(Attachment 1_Pricing)

In determining which proposal provides the best value to the Government, non-price evaluation factors are significantly more important than evaluated price.

Offerors shall be evaluated on the four factors listed below:

Volume I

Factor 1 – Technical Approach and Understanding Factor 2 – Management Approach and Qualifications Factor 3 – Past Performance

Volume II

Factor 4 - Price

Factors 1 through 3 are in descending order of importance. Factor 1 (Technical Approach and Understanding) is more important than Factor 2 (Management Approach and Understanding). Individually, Factor 1 and Factor 2 are more important the Factor 3 (Past Performance). These three non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price).

Based upon the results of the integrated assessment of the technical and price proposals, the Government may make an award to other than the lowest-priced offeror or the offeror with the highest technical score if the source selection official determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. The following describes how each factor will be evaluated:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will award a 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. The following shall be used to evaluate offers:

SELECTION CRITERIA: Best Value – Trade off

Volume I

Proposal Evaluation for Factors 1 – 3 of this requirement, in descending order of importance, are as listed below.

The sub factors are of equal importance and will be evaluated EQUALLY.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH AND UNDERSTANDING

RFP Instructions and Evaluation Factors - Page 2 of 6

1.1 Project Work Plan and Schedule

1.2 Methods and techniques for completing each task to include but not limited to: a staffing plan and equipment to be utilized; tier 4 qualifications and paralleling certification; use of other service providers.

1.3 Full performance and acceptability of work

1.4 Hazmat Environmental Control Plan and Safety Plan

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND QUALIFICATIONS

2.1 List of key personnel

2.2 Organization chart

2.3 Project Management Plan

2.4 Quality Control Plan

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

3.1 Quality of the work

3.2 Customer satisfaction

3.3 Timeliness of performance and the completion of the contract

Proposals rated unsatisfactory for any of the Factors 1-3 or sub factors which includes Technical Approach and Understanding, Management Approach and Qualifications or Past Performance WILL BE ELIMINATED from further consideration for contract award.

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.

If the offeror fails to materially follow the solcitation requirements, then the offeror will be declared ineligibe for further consideration for award and for evaluation.

Each offeror’s proposal will be rated on an individual basis; each technical factor will be rated individually and then the Offeror will receive an overall rating for Volume 1. Once the technical proposal has been properly evaluated, the following proposal adjectival merit rating will be used to determine the overall technical rating of an offeror’s proposal (Volume 1):

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

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

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. Has NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Satisfactory Meets all requirements; proposal offers no significant benefits beyond the stated requirements. Has NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

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

Volume II

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

FACTOR 4: PRICE

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

PWS.

RFP Instructions and Evaluation Factors - Page 3 of 6

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 Offerors will be evaluated on the degree to which they provide a complete submission in accordance with the RFP instructions, and demonstrate the knowledge, understanding, and the technical ability to successfully perform the requirements of the PWS.

The following sub factors are to be evaluated for Factor 1 - Technical Approach and Understanding and are of equal importance:

Sub factors 1 - 4:

1.1. Provide a detailed 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.

(PART 6: SPECIFIC TASKS)

1.2. Provide a detailed explanation of proposed methods and techniques for completing annual and quarterly maintenance services – including meeting tier 4 qualifications and paralleling certification;

repairs; and return to storage; to include staffing plan and equipment to be utilized; use of other service providers as it relates to the PWS (PART 4: CONTRACTOR DELIVERABLES 4.6

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

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

1.3. Provide Quality Control Plan, which supports how each service (annual, quarterly and return to storage) 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)

1.4. Provide outline of the offeror’s Hazmat Environmental Control Plan and Safety Plan as it relates to the

PWS. (PART 4: CONTRACTOR DELIVERABLES 4.5 SAFETY)

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 QASP 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 QASP that exceeds performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Weaknesses, if any, are small in impact.

Satisfactory Technical proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of requirements and an approach in accordance with the PWS and QASP that meets performance or capability standards. No strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate. No significant weakness or deficiencies.

Unsatisfactory Technical proposal fails to meet the minimum standard requirements in this solicitation in accordance with the PWS and QASP. Has one or more significant weaknesses and/or one or more deficiencies.

RFP Instructions and Evaluation Factors - Page 4 of 6

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

Evaluation Criteria for Management Approach and Qualifications 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 personnel qualifications and 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.

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

Sub factors 1 - 4:

2.1. Provide 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 and capability – tier 4 generator training and paralleling capability training certifications are REQUIRED as part of this solicitation, 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)

2.2. Provide 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: CONUS Inventory_14 December 2016)

Evaluation Rating for Factor 2:

Management Approach and Qualifications

Rating Definition Superior Management proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and approach in accordance with the PWS and QASP 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 an approach in accordance with the PWS and QASP that exceeds performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. Weaknesses, if any, are small in impact.

Satisfactory Management proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of requirements and an approach in accordance with the PWS and QASP that meets performance or capability standards. No strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate. No significant weakness or deficiencies.

Unsatisfactory Management proposal fails to meet the minimum standard requirements in this solicitation in accordance with the PWS and QASP. Has one or more significant weaknesses and/or one or more deficiencies.

RFP Instructions and Evaluation Factors - Page 5 of 6

2.3. Provide 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)

2.4. Provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QCP, at a 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)

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

Evaluation Rating for Factor 3:

Past Performance

Rating Definition Neutral No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating. A search 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 similar complexity and magnitude of this procurement, considering such factors as similar size, scope, complexity, 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 government will inquire about the following sub factors for Factor 3 Past Performance, which are of equal importance:

3.1 Quality of the Offeror’s work

3.2 Customer satisfaction

3.3 Timeliness of performance and the 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 the contract performance of the Offeror that is not included in the submitted Past Performance Information. Additionally, evaluator knowledge of Offeror performance may be utilized.

The Offeror shall identify three (3) to five (5) contracts orders (from the PRIME offeror) with the Federal Government or Industry that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance. Recent is defined as within the last three (3) years of the proposal due date. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude to the

RFP Instructions and Evaluation Factors - Page 6 of 6 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 as outlined in the final pages this solicitation directly to the contracting officer and contracting specialist.

The offeror shall include the following information:

1. Project Title

2. Description of the Project

3. Contract/Task Order Number

4. Contract/Task Order total 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

FACTOR 4: PRICE EVALUATION

Price will be evaluated to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. In evaluating price, the Government will follow the proposal analysis techniques from FAR 15.404-1. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

• Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

• Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications.

• Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

• Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

• Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

The Option to Extend Services (FAR 52.217-8), is designated to evaluate the 6-month option. For evaluation purposes, the 6-month pricing will be computed at the end of the last option period by dividing the last option price by 2. The offeror shall not propose the 6-month pricing. This 6-month option pricing will be part of the total evaluated price.

Volume 2, Price Proposal, must be submitted by completing the excel spreadsheet entitled “Attachment 1 Pricing”.

The spreadsheet consist of the following tabs:

- “Annual Service” – Offeror to fill in gray field

- “Quarterly Run Ups” – Offeror to fill in gray field

- “Return to Storage CONUS ” – Offeror to fill in gray field

- “Labor Rate” – Offeror to fill the proposed labor rates. NOTE: The offeror may entitle the labor rate by the offerors labor category.

- End of RFP Instructions and Evaluations Factors -