J.01 Evaluation Factors for IDIQ A-E Services.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS

FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES

INSTRUCTIONS

Evaluation will be based on the Merit Factors found in the subsequent pages in descending order of importance. Merit Factor 1 is of highest importance, followed by Merit Factor 2, and so forth. Each Merit Factor is then divided into Categories that are also listed in descending order of importance.

Hence, Category 1 under each Merit Factor is of highest importance, as is Item (a) under each Category.

Unless noted otherwise, the responses shall be submitted as follows:

1. All responses shall be in 12 point, Times New Roman Font.

2. For Merit Factor 1, each offeror shall submit a maximum of one (1) page response per Item under each Category. For Example, Category 1 (Studies, analysis, and design of hydraulic structures) – A maximum of one (1) page for each Item (Levees, River Channels, Dams, etc.)

shall be submitted. Each Item shall not exceed the one (1) page and will not be read and evaluated past the one (1) page requirement.

3. For Merit Factors 2 through 5, each offeror shall submit a maximum of one (1) page response per Category under each Merit Factor, unless otherwise noted. Each Category response shall not exceed the one (1) page requirement and will not be read and evaluated past the one (1) page requirement.

4. In each response page, the Merit Factor, Category, and Item shall be included followed by the response.

5. The responses to the Evaluation Factors shall be submitted in one (1) three ring binder and a pdf file that is in the same sequential order as provided. All Merit Factors shall be separated with a tab and all pages within the Merit factor shall be numbered in the following manner: x of xx.

6. Margins shall have the following minimum dimensions: Left 1 inch, Right 0.75 inch, Top 0.4 inch, and Bottom 0.5 inch

Responses that are not in the format specified shall be set aside and shall not be evaluated. There will be no exceptions. Refer to the last page for a format of sample responses.

The following adjectives will be used in evaluating all the Merit Factors, except for past performance, and for the technical proposal as a whole:

Exceptional: Exceeds the Scope of Work (SOW) requirements and exemplifies a thorough understanding of all aspects of the Solicitation requirements to the extent that timeliness and the highest quality performance is anticipated. Contains strengths, exceptional features, or innovations that should substantially benefit agency projects. There are no deficiencies and one or more significant strengths. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

Very Good: Meets the minimum SOW requirements and demonstrates good understanding of Solicitation requirements that is anticipated to result in a high level of efficiency, productivity, or quality. There is at least one significant strength. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory: Meets the minimum SOW requirements and demonstrates adequate understanding of Solicitation requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on the performance of projects. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Marginal: Does not meet some of the minimum SOW requirements and/or demonstrates superficial or vague understanding of the Solicitation requirements. Has weaknesses that are not offset by strengths. Only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal, but acceptable performance on projects. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate to high.

Unsatisfactory: Does not meet the SOW requirements. There is at least one significant weakness and/or deficiency which indicates a failure to understand the SOW and/or Solicitation requirements. The risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Past Performance Evaluation Adjectives.

Exceptional: Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many requirements. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The Government has an extremely high degree of confidence and no doubt that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements of the Solicitation. Past performance exceeds "Very Good."

Very Good: Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some requirements. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. The Government has a high degree of confidence that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements of the Solicitation. Past performance exceeds "Satisfactory."

Satisfactory: Performance met contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were, or appear to be, satisfactory. The Government has reasonable confidence that the Offeror can successfully achieve the requirements of the Solicitation.

Marginal: Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. The Government is somewhat confident that the Offeror can meet the requirements of the Solicitation. Past performance is less than "Satisfactory."

Unsatisfactory: Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were, or appear to be, ineffective. The Government has no confidence that the Offeror can meet the requirements of the Solicitation. Past performance is less than "Marginal."

Neutral: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Definitions.

“Significant Strength” is an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

“Strength” is an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance. (Simple adherence to the requirements of the solicitation is compliance and shall not be listed as a strength.)

“Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

“Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (Failure to provide items listed in respective proposal instructions will be considered a weakness.)

“Significant Weakness” is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (Failure to provide items listed in respective proposal instructions that results in an inability to evaluate factors will be considered a significant weakness.)

"Magnitude" is the dollar amount of work performed. Similar in magnitude refers to projects priced at 85% of your bid and above.

"Scope" is the technical requirements of work performed. Similar in scope refers to the same type of work with comparable or greater quantities.

"Complexity" is the difficulty of performing work due to many varied interrelated parts.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEERING SERVICES

MERIT FACTOR 1 – Specialized experience and technical competence for satisfactory performance of Architect-Engineering Services. Demonstrate experience in each of the following:

1. Studies, Analysis, and Design of Hydraulic Structures

a. Dams

b. Levees

c. Floodwalls

d. River Channel

e. Canals

f. Culverts

2. Analysis of Hydraulic and Hydrologic Systems

a. Surface Water and Ground Water Studies

b. Dam Break

c. Reservoir Capacity

d. Flood Routing

e. Sediment Transport Studies and Modeling

3. Studies, Analysis, and Design of Wastewater Treatment Plants

a. Upgrades to existing wastewater treatment plants required for permit compliance and/or capacity increases

b. Advanced Primary Treatment

c. Secondary Treatment

4. Studies, Analysis of Geotechnical Support Requirements

a. Seepage Analysis

b. Slope Stability

c. Design of de-watering systems

5. Studies, Analysis and Design of Civil Works

a. Buildings - Administrative, Storage, and Maintenance Buildings. Discuss components and requirements involved (Mechanical, Fire Protection – facility and equipment, Electrical, Plumbing, Structural, Communications, Physical and Environmental controls for information systems, Security, Safety Systems, LEED Certification, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)).

b. Ancillary Civil Structures, i.e. Water towers, sewage lift stations, parking structures, wash racks, exterior lighting, retaining walls, fencing, and utilities infrastructure.

c. Energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction and use of recovered materials in design of any civil works projects.

d. Feasibility studies and cost benefit analysis for civil works.

6. Studies, Analysis and Design of Hydroelectric Plant Systems, specifically for rehabilitation and upgrades of existing plants

a. Instrumentation and Controls

b. Automation

c. Structural

7. Studies, Analysis and Design of Site Remediation

a. Underground Storage Tanks

b. Contaminated soil and ground water remediation

c. Lead and Asbestos remediation

d. Mold remediation (small buildings)

8. Geographic Information System (GIS)

a. Integrate hardware, software, and data for capturing, managing, analyzing, and displaying all forms of geographically referenced information.

9. Preparation of Base Maps using and preparing the following

a. Aerial Photography/Traditional Land Surveying

b. Scanning vectorization and geo-referencing of historical maps

c. Inundation and Floodplain Maps

d. Light Detecting and Ranging (LIDAR) surveys, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) applications

MERIT FACTOR 2 – Past performance on contracts with Federal, State, and/or local government agencies and private industry in terms of quality of work, cost control, compliance with schedules, and managerial ability.

1. Provide a list of projects performed during the last ten (10) years similar in nature to the work described for each Category under Merit Factor 1. For Categories 1 through 5, a maximum of five (5) projects per Category shall be listed. For Categories 6 through 9, a maximum of two

(2) projects per Category shall be listed. Each Project shall contain the following information (Note the one page maximum requirement does not apply to this Category, however additional information submitted other than what is requested will not be read and evaluated) :

a. Name of Contracting Agency/Owner

b. Contract Number if available

c. Contract Type

d. Total Contract Value (Original and Final Value)

e. Agency/Owner Contact Name and Telephone Number

f. Indicate if Contractor was Prime Contractor or Sub-Contractor.

g. Brief description of the work and how this work relates to the work outlined under this solicitation. This list, in conjunction with the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), will be used for evaluation. The description shall not exceed ten (10) lines.

2. Provide one (1) example, for each Category 1 through 9 above, of past performance in quality of work, cost controls, compliance with performance schedules, and managerial abilities, demonstrating timely completion, reasons for any modifications to contract, and difficulties or issues with contract and resolution to each. Each example shall not exceed half (1/2) of one (1) page.

3. Describe regional or national quality awards received during the past five (5) years that indicate the technical and engineering performance of the firm.

MERIT FACTOR 3 – Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of Architect-Engineering Services.

1. Provide information discussing qualified professional who are certified and highly trained to include the following key disciplines: Project Manager, Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Hydrologic Engineer, Hydraulic Engineer, Structural Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Central Office (network and communication) Engineer, U.S.

Green Building Council (USGBC) certified Leadership in Energy and Environmental (LEED) Accredited Professional, multi-disciplined security specialist, historical preservation specialist, Geophysicist, Cost Engineer, Hydro-geologist, Geologist, Surveyor, GIS Specialist, CADD Designer and CADD Operator, which shows consistency with this solicitation. It is highly preferred that professionals have certifications such as Project Management Professional (PMP), Program Management Professional (PgMP), Planning and Scheduling Professional (PSP), Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM), Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP), Value specialist (CVS) as certified by Society of American Value Engineers (SAVE) International, and Certified Facility Manager (CFM). The description shall include the number of personnel in each discipline. (Note that the one page maximum requirement does not apply to this Category, however additional information submitted other than what is requested will not be read and evaluated: The offerer shall not exceed two (2) pages in length.)

2. Identify state registration and licensing for architects and engineers in CA, AZ, NM, and TX.

3. Provide information on contractor’s corporate structure, including regional and field office structure.

MERIT FACTOR 4 – The firm’s capacity to accomplish the contract performance in the required time frame.

1. Provide information on the firm’s capacity to accomplish work within a required period of time. In addition, from the projects listed in Merit Factor 2.(1), expound on one (1) project, where you were the Prime Contractor, detailing information on which there were significant delays and obstacles to complete the project yet the deliverable was submitted on time.

2. Provide the firm’s Proposed Professional Team for this contract to accomplish the contract performance in the required time frame. Include qualified and experienced professional assigned to this contract including the design team as well as the quality control review team.

Include professional employee name, education, title, certification, years of experience, years with the firm for each of the applicable disciplines: Program Manager, Project Manager, Civil Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Hydraulic Engineer, Structural Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Surveyor, Environmental Engineer, Hydrologist, Geo-hydrologist, Geologist, Cost Engineer, GIS Professional and AutoCAD Technician.

3. Provide information on availability of equipment, facilities, and other resources needed to perform all required data analysis, design work, and preparation of drawings, specifications, studies, and assessments including, but not limited to, office and field equipment, computer hardware and software, specialized tools and equipment, and vehicles.

MERIT FACTOR 5 – Firm’s location in the general geographical area of the project (CA, AZ, NM, and TX) and knowledge of the locality of the project. Note experience in dealing with local and regional issues to include economic, environmental, and binational along the US/Mexico border.