J12 - APPENDIX C_Source Selection.docx

APPENDIX C

Evaluation Factors and Methodology

Submission Requirements and Evaluation Minimum Requirements

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

General

Evaluation Methodology

Factor Identification – The Source Selections Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals received in response to the Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Road Maintenance and Construction Request for Proposals. Award will be made to the offeror who represents the best value to the Forest Service on the basis of both non-cost factors and Cost/Price factors:

Non-Cost/Price Factors:

Factor 1 – Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance

When combined, these technical evaluation factors are significantly more important than cost or price. Factor 3 – Cost/Price Factor 1: Experience

a. Submission Requirements: Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant projects in which they best demonstrates the Offeror’s experience on projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the Request for Proposal (RFP). At least one submitted project must be in a distant/remote setting.

To be considered relevant, projects must have been completed within the past five (5) years of the proposal issue date for this RFP. Preference will be given to those offerors that can show relevant projects.

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 For Official Use Only Developed by Virtual Acquisition Office™ for federal government use and customization.

A project is defined as work performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple/single award and IDIQ type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather Offerors shall submit the work performed under a task order as a project.

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.

b. Minimum Requirement: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government may only review the first five (5) projects , in the order they were submitted in the proposal. Any projects submitted in excess of the first five (5) for Experience may not be considered.

If an offeror has no record of relevant experience, the government will not evaluate the offeror favorably on this factor.

Relevant projects where the Offeror and its proposed subcontractors previously worked together may be considered more favorably than those that have not worked together.

Proposals that contain relevant roads maintenance and construction projects that demonstrate experience in multiple disciplines may be considered more favorably.

Proposals that contain relevant projects completed for the Forest Service may be considered more favorably.

Factor 2: Past Performance

a. Submission Requirements: If a completed Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluation Report or a Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) Evaluation Report is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 3 for Experience. If there is not a completed CPARS or CCASS evaluation, then submit a Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (RFP Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 3 for Experience. The Offeror should provide completed PPQs in the proposal.

b. Questionnaire

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may make reasonable attempts to contact the client noted for that project(s) to obtain the PPQ information. However, Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to help ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, julio.nazarioruiz@usda.gov

Offerors shall provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 3 – Experience. Offerors shall also address any adverse past performance issues.

Explanations shall be Times New Roman 11 font (minimum) and shall not exceed two (2) double-sided 8.5” x 11” pages (or four (4) single-sided 8.5” x 11” pages) in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

c. Minimum Requirement: This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror’s team performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 3 – Experience and may also consider past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of Contractors who are part of a partnership or Joint Venture(JV) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance and will receive a NEUTRAL rating.

Factor 3: Cost/Price Submission Requirement:

Submit a Firm Fixed Price for the items in the Contract Line Item (CLIN) schedule for seed project(s) within the area of interest. Offerors shall submit a completed Schedule of Items for each seed project.

Source Selection Decision:

In order to select the successful offerors, we will rank the proposals from Highest to Lowest using the following ratings:

· SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

· SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

· NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government cannot determine a confidence rating. For example: No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

· LIMITED CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

· NO CONFIDENCE: Based on the offeror’s Non-Cost/Price Factors shown on their proposal, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate the total price to determine fairness and reasonableness. The total prices will be evaluated but not scored. Reasonableness will be determined by comparison to other competitive prices received and to the Independent Government Estimate. If a price is disproportionally lower than other competitive prices, the price may be deemed unrealistic. If necessary, the price break downs may be analyzed to determine whether the price elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the information provided by the Offeror.

A. The degree of importance of the price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based, or when the price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

B. The Government may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer, discussions will be conducted with only those offerors determined to have a reasonable chance for award.

C. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to the offeror with the highest non-price evaluation if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the greatest value to the Government.