Attachment E - Section 00200 Evaluation Factors.pdf

SECTION 00200 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer.

2. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, if the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

3. The LPTA process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition because the best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

4. An overall non-price factors rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be eligible for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor results in the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any subfactor results in the factor being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” and the overall non-price factors proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

B. SAFETY EVALUATION

1. Per NFAS 15.304(d), solicitations utilizing source selection procedures for procurements within the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas shall contain a standard “Safety” technical evaluation factor. This factor shall be included as a stand-alone evaluation factor and not as a sub-factor or an element of the Past Performance evaluation factor. This action will result in the selection of contractors that have consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and the ability to properly manage and implement safety procedures for themselves and all tiers of subcontractors under their purview.

2. The safety evaluation has three elements: Experience Modification Rate (EMR);

Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) Days Away from Work, Job Restriction, or Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates; and Technical Approach to Safety.

3. The safety elements should be collectively considered and then assigned an overall adjectival rating for the safety factor. The board will need to make a qualitative determination of the rating for safety taking into account the risk ratings for EMR, DART, TRC and the subjective evaluation of the narrative.

4. The board will not average the rating from the three previous complete calendar years for the EMR, DART and TRC and should consider data trends.

5. The following should be utilized by evaluators as a general guideline to evaluate the EMR,DART and TRC rates:

Risk EMR Very Low Risk Less than 0.6 Low Risk From 0.6 to less than 0.8 Moderate Risk From 0.8 to 1.0 High Risk Greater than1.0 to 1.1 Extremely High Risk Greater than 1.1

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

Risk TRC Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater than 6.0

The only ratings for evaluation of the safety factor are “acceptable” or “unacceptable.” A rating of “High Risk” or better is acceptable for three consecutive years. When EMR, DART or TRC fall into the “Extremely High Risk” category, for any one year, evaluators must determine whether the other elements of the safety factor evaluation provide sufficient basis to elevate the overall rating to the “acceptable” level.

C. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS/DESCRIPTIONS

Each Offeror’s technical factors and subfactors and past performance will be evaluated separately. Upon the conclusion of the evaluation of the technical factors and subfactors, and past performance, an overall non-price factors rating of Acceptable (A) or Unacceptable (U) will be assigned to each Offeror’s non-price factors proposal.

1. The following adjectival ratings and rating descriptions will be used to assign a rating to each technical factor and subfactor. Use upper case letter ratings for major technical factor ratings. Use lower case letter ratings for technical subfactor. The addition of plus (+) or minus (-) to an adjective rating is not allowed.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The weaknesses and/or deficiencies (as defined below) of each proposal for each non-price evaluation factor which influenced the assigned adjectival rating shall be identified.

Definitions

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency 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.

2. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Past Performance shall be evaluated when using the LPTA process, unless waived by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.101-2(b). Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in the following table:

Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable (A)

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable (U) Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

(a) Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects of the past performance evaluation.

(1) The first is to evaluate whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired.

(2) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

D. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. The solicitation requires the evaluation of price and the following non-price factors and subfactors:

Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability Subfactor A – Relevant Experience Subfactor B – Technical Approach Subfactor C – Technical Qualifications of Proposed Staffing

Factor 2 – Safety Factor 3 – Past Performance

The distinction between corporate experience and past performance is corporate experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work 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 both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts.

2. Basis of Evaluation and Submittal Requirements.

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The number of proposals to be evaluated for technical acceptability shall be limited to the lowest priced offer. If the lowest priced proposal is not found to be technically acceptable then the next lowest price proposal shall be evaluated. If that proposal is also not found to be technically acceptable, then the process described will be conducted again as many times as necessary, until such time as the Government identifies a technically acceptable proposal. If the contracting officer later determines that discussions are necessary, the procedures in FAR

15.306 shall be followed.

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Price Schedule, Attachment C and breakdown of material and labor costs by specifications division for Prime Contractor and each subcontractor.

(2) Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate price based on the total price. Total price consists of the basic requirements and all option items. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section 0700 of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP.

(ii) Comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information.

(iv) Comparison of market survey results.

(b) Factor 1, Technical Acceptability: Technical acceptability comprise of three (3) subfactors:

(1) Subfactor A - Relevant Experience

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit Exhibit “A” (Construction Experience Project Data Sheet – Offeror). Submit a minimum of three (3) to maximum of five

(5) recent and relevant projects that best demonstrates your experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements contained in the RFP. For this acquisition, recency refers to work that was 100% completed within a time period of no more than five (5) years prior to the date of submitting this proposal. Relevancy refers to construction work as a prime contractor on a contract for NAICS 236220 and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $1,000,000.00. The projects submitted should have an overall value of $1,000,000.00 and include:

i. One project with a significant mechanical component and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $300,000.00.

ii. One project with a significant interior remodeling component and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $100,000.00.

iii. One project with mechanical, interior remodeling, civil, plumbing, structural and/or electrical work on a building or structure and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $400,000.00.

iv. The Offeror can submit a project that includes multiple disciplines; however, the Offeror must provide three (3) projects.

Experience shall not be submitted by combined projects to meet the relevancy requirements described above. If more than the maximum number of projects is submitted, the Government will only evaluate projects up to the maximum number authorized in the RFP, excess will not be evaluated. Use of the OFFEROR EXPERIENCE PROJECT DATA SHEET is mandatory, Attachment C for submission of project information.

For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed, value of the project, and the relevancy of the project to the requirements of the RFP.

NOTE: If the Offeror is a joint venture, recent and relevant project experience should be submitted for projects performed by the joint venture. However, if there are no recent and relevant projects performed by the joint venture, then projects must be submitted for each and all joint venture partners, not to exceed a total of five (5) projects for the combined joint venture entity. In addition, the Offeror needs to provide a copy of the joint-venture agreement. Offerors failing to provide projects from each and all joint venture partners and a copy of the joint-venture agreement will be considered to have not met the requirements of the factor and shall be rated Unacceptable.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated recent and relevant corporate experience involving construction work as a prime contractor on a contract for NAICS 236220 and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $1,000,000.00.

An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if its submittals for “Corporate Experience” demonstrates experience completed within the past five (5) years of the issuance of this RFP involving work as a prime contractor on a contract for NAICS 236220 with a contract value equal to, or greater than, $1,000,000.00 and include:

i. One project with a significant mechanical component and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $300,000.00.

ii. One project with a significant interior remodeling component and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $100,000.00.

iii. One project with mechanical, interior remodeling, civil, plumbing, structural and/or electrical work on a building or structure and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $400,000.00.

An Offeror will be rated “Unacceptable” if its submittals for “Corporate Experience” fails to demonstrate experience completed within the past five (5) years of the issuance of this RFP involving work as a prime contractor on a contract for NAICS 236220 with a contract value equal to, or greater than, $1,000,000.00 and include:

i. One project with a significant mechanical component and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $300,000.00.

ii. One project with a significant interior remodeling component and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $100,000.00.

iii. One project with mechanical, interior remodeling, civil, plumbing, structural and/or electrical work on a building or structure and for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $400,000.00.

A proposal receiving an “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for Factor 1 will be ineligible for award.

(2) Subfactor B - Technical Approach

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit a written technical construction management approach plan (plan) that demonstrates understanding and capabilities of completing all work in accordance with the Statement of Work and project drawings.

a. The plan should describe the proposed approach in accomplishing the scope of work within the performance period prescribed. The plan will address the following items: (1) consideration of long lead items; (2) phasing and consideration for the movement of occupants from affected areas; and (3) an over-all understanding of the sequence of work within a building that will remain occupied.

b. The plan must identify all work that can be accomplished with in-house resources and demonstrate that they are capable of obtaining any project requirements that cannot be self-performed. The technical construction management plan must identify how the Offeror will directly superintend the work, perform project and quality control management, comply with safety and environmental regulations and interface with occupied buildings.

c. Any project requirements that cannot be self-performed must be identified (e.g.

subcontractors list and manufacturers of key material components for the project) The Offeror shall provide this information with their company proposal submission.

d. Additionally, the Contractor shall submit a schedule that shows a clear understanding of the scope of work required for the project, with a work plan that will ensure achievement of task objectives and phasing. At a minimum the schedule should reflect the following:

i. A viable transition plan with contingency planning and established milestones that shows how each phase of work will be incorporated and transitioned from phase to phase.

This building will remain occupied and their classroom training will continue so it is imperative to show how the phases of work will be coordinated to limit the impacts of an occupied building and active classroom training environment.

ii. Staff flexibility and commitment to perform work assignments on short notice based on changing priorities as to limit impacts.

iii. An overall effective strategy that accomplishes all project goals and milestones as outlined in the Statement of Work and Project design package.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated an understanding and capabilities of completing all work in accordance with the Statement of Work and project drawings.

An Offeror will be rated “Acceptable” if the submitted plan and schedule addressed all of the items identified in the submittal requirements and the plan and schedule demonstrates an understanding and capabilities of completing all work in accordance with the Statement of Work and project drawings.

An Offeror will be rated “Unacceptable” if the submitted plan and schedule failed to address all of the items identified in the submittal requirements and the plan and schedule do not demonstrate an understanding and capabilities of completing all work in accordance with the Statement of Work and project drawings.

(3) Subfactor C – Technical Qualifications Of Proposed Staffing

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit the technical qualifications and provide a letter of commitment (signed by the individual and the offeror) for the following key personnel. Technical qualification shall be no more than 2 pages.

a. Site superintendent - Graduate Civil/Mechanical Engineer or Construction Manager with 2 years of experience in the type of work being performed on this project or person with 3 years of experience supervising mechanical and building remodeling or interior renovations in the field with a construction company.

b. Quality control manager - An individual with a minimum of 3 years combined experience in the following positions: Project Superintendent, QC Manager, Project Manager, Project Engineer, or Construction Manager on similar size and type construction contracts which include the major trades that are part of this Contract. The individual must have at least two years of experience as a QC Manager.

c. Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) – Individual(s) who meets minimum requirements of Section 01 35 26 and experience with FAR 52.236-13 Accident Prevention (Nov 1991). Accident Prevention includes compliance with the standards issued by the Secretary of

Labor at 29 CFR Part 1926 and 29 CFR Part 1910; and compliance with all pertinent provisions of the latest version of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1, in effect on the date of the solicitation.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

Responses will be reviewed for information that demonstrates the proposed key personnel have the education, training, knowledge, and experience to successfully carry out the project. The information provided shall demonstrate the following:

a. Requisite qualifications, experience, and commitment of the site superintendent and proposed staff;

b. Demonstrated ability of proposed staff to perform work assignments accurately and in a timely manner;

c. Staff flexibility and commitment to perform work assignments on short notice based on changing project priorities.

(2) Factor 2, Safety:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership or joint venture, the following submittal requirements are required for each contractor who is part of the partnership or joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. EMR, DART and TRC Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): Include three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. This rate compares company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums. The offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate if no EMR exists. If the offeror has no EMR or premium, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affect the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of the factor submission.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit three previous complete calendar years’ worth of data. If an offeror cannot submit an OSHA DART and TRC rates, for any year, affirmatively state so and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA, DART, and TRC rate data negatively must be addressed as part of this factor submission.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. The offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor performed work. The offeror will describe any innovative methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contactor will describe their methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. The technical approach to safety narrative shall be limited to two pages.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

- OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total

Recordable Case (TRC) Rates

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years the offeror will submit EMR. If no EMR exists, the offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate explaining why not. If an insurance company-provided equivalent rate is provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of this selection factor. The board will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: For the three previous complete calendar years, the offeror will submit their OSHA DART and TRC, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART and TRC rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The offeror will describe their plan to evaluate their safety performance and that of potential subcontractors. Also, describe any innovative methods that the Offeror will employ to ensure and monitor safe work practices at all subcontractor levels. The Safety Narrative shall be limited to two pages. The board will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the selection of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project. The board will evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement and validate the contractor has addressed methodology to be used in the execution of an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques/processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps. Those Offerors whose plan demonstrates a commitment to hire subcontractors with a culture of safety and who propose innovative methods to enhance a safe working environment may be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(4) Other Sources of Information Available to the Government: Other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

(c) Past Performance

(1) Factor 3, Past Performance:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: IF A COMPLETED CPARS

EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL. IF THERE

IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) (Exhibit “B”) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 1, Corporate Experience. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A

COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. 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 (Exhibit “B”), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Ms. Maria Caceres, via email identified in Block 10 of the solicitation prior to proposal closing date. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs or CPARS previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/Entity Identifier numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

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.”

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

- A pattern of deliverables that are timely and of good quality;

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels

(task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and

- Recency of tasks performed that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand”