Attachment E -SECTION 00200 REVISED.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 five (5)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

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

Risk The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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. The criteria to establish what is relevant is unique to each LPTA source selection. For this solicitation, 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 or repair work of power lines to include high voltage electrical work performed as a prime contractor, for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than $1,000,000.00 or as a prime contractor whereby the major subcontractor performed this same work and magnitude as above.

(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.

(b) SSEB members will review past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment.

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 for each factor.

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 of the RFP 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. 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 a minimum of three (3) to maximum of five (5) recent and relevant projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates experience on relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RFP, and in particular, experience with the installation and construction of high voltage electrical utilities. 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 or repair work of power lines to include high voltage electrical work, performed as a prime contractor for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than $1,000,000.00 or as a prime contractor whereby the major subcontractor performed this same work and magnitude as above.

A project is defined as a construction project performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity 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.

The Offeror shall not combine projects to meet the magnitude 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.

The attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Exhibit A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to submit project information. Except as specifically requested, the Government will not consider information submitted in addition to this form. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded;

however, total length for each project data sheet shall not exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages)

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 (i.e., unique features, area, construction methods).

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. If a JV performed a project, and not all partners from that JV are on the JV proposed for this contract, the offeror shall clearly demonstrate what portion of the work was performed by the JV partner offering on this contract and shall not include work performed by the JV as a whole. The JV member proposed for this contract shall specifically address field work performed by that JV member including field staffing and direct field work oversight. The JV member proposed for this contract shall also address home office management performed by that JV member including the number/percent of employees provided for the overall contract by the JV member as well as the overall percentage of work performed by the JV member. 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. The requirement for acceptability will be based upon the projects submitted by the Offeror in its proposal, the Offeror must have at least three (3) projects that contains construction, or repair work of power lines to include high voltage electrical work performed as a prime contractor for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than $1,000,000.00 or as a prime contractor whereby the major subcontractor performed this same work and magnitude as above.

An Offeror’s proposal will be rated “Acceptable” if the Offeror submitted a minimum of three (3) projects for “Relevant Experience.” All three (3) projects must demonstrate the relevant experience required and that the work has been completed within the past five (5) years of the issuance of this RFP.

An Offeror’s Proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” if the Offeror fails to submit a minimum of three (3) projects. The proposal will also be rated unacceptable if any of the projects fail to demonstrate relevant experience or if the projects have not been completed within the past five (5) years of the issuance of this

RFP.

A proposal receiving an “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for Subfactor A will be ineligible for award unless corrected through discussions.

(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) an over-all understanding of the sequence of work and how that work shall impact occupied buildings; and (3) phasing and coordination requirements regarding multiple outages.

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. Affected building will remain occupied and classroom training will continue. It is imperative to show how each phase of work will be coordinated to limit the impacts to 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. The Offeror shall submit a written technical construction management approach plan and a schedule.

An Offeror’s proposal will be rated “Acceptable” if the Offeror submitted a written technical construction management approach plan that addressed 2(i)(a)(b) &(c) above and a schedule that addressed 2(i)(d) above. 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’s proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” if the Offeror failed to submit a written technical construction management approach plan that addressed 2(i)(a)(b) &(c) above and a schedule that addressed 2(i)(d) above.

(3) Subfactor C – Technical Qualifications Of Proposed Staffing

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit the technical qualifications for the site superintendent. Technical qualification shall be no more than two pages.

(A) Site superintendent – To be considered qualified, the individual shall be a

Graduate Electrical Engineer, or Construction Manager with 5 years of experience in the type of work being performed on this project, or person with 10 years of experience supervising exterior electrical utility work in the field with a construction company.

(B) Quality Control Manager - To be considered technically acceptable and qualified, the individual must meet the qualifications set forth in the specifications under Section 01 45

00.00 20, paragraph 1.5.1.2 Qualification and paragraph 1.5.2 Construction Quality Management Training.

(C) Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) - To be considered technically acceptable, the Individual(s) must meet minimum requirements set forth in the specifications under Section 01 35 26, paragraph 1.7.1 Personnel Qualifications and experience with FAR 52.236-13 Accident Prevention (Nov 1991)

(ii) Provide a letter of commitment (signed by the individual and the Offeror) for the:

(A) Site Superintendent;

(B) Quality Control Manager (QCM); and

(C) Site, Safety, Health Officer (SSHO).

(iv) Basis of Evaluation:

An Offeror’s proposal will be rated “Acceptable” if the Offeror submitted technical qualifications demonstrate that the proposed Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager and SSHO have the requisite education, training, qualifications, knowledge, experience, and ability to perform the work; and the Offeror provided a signed letters of commitment for the Site Superintendent, the QCM, and the

SSHO.

An Offeror’s proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” if the Offeror’s submitted technical qualifications failed to demonstrate that the proposed Site Superintendent has the requisite education, training, qualifications, knowledge, experience, and ability to perform the work; and the Offeror failed to provide a signed letter of commitment for the Site Superintendent, the QCM, or the SSHO.

(2) Factor 2, Safety:

(a) 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) OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate:

For years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 & 2019, submit your OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA TRC Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA TRC Rate data should be addressed as part of this element. OSHA TRC rates above 4.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate:

For years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 & 2019, submit your OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If you cannot submit an OSHA DART Rate, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART Rate data should be addressed as part of this element. OSHA DART rates above 3.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

(3) Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to qualify, evaluate, select and oversee its potential subcontractors. The Safety narrative shall be limited to one page. Offerors must submit both (1) a plan to include the safety performance of subcontractors in the selection process for all levels of subcontractors and (2) a plan to monitor the safety of those subcontractors during contract performance, highlighting what specific management practices will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support to those sub-contractors whose EMR is greater than 1.0, whose TRC is greater than 4.0 and whose DART rate is greater than 3.0. Offerors who fail to submit either of these will be rated UNACCEPTABLE.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has an acceptable safety record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record as evidenced by the TRC and DART rates, if the Offeror’s plan includes safety in the evaluation and selection of subcontractors, and if the narrative includes a plan to monitor the safety performance of subcontractors during performance. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- OSHA Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate

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

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

(1) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate:

The Government will evaluate the OSHA TRC Rate to determine if the Offeror’s OSHA TRC rate is above 4.0 and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. OSHA TRC rates above 4.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: The Government will evaluate the OSHA DART Rate to determine if the Offeror’s OSHA DART rate is above 3.0 and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. OSHA DART rates above 3.0, in any of the previous five years, will be considered UNACCEPTABLE, unless an adequate explanation is provided to address the extenuating circumstances that affected the rate.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government will evaluate the narrative to determine if subcontractor safety performance will be considered in the qualification, evaluation, selection, of all levels of subcontractors on the upcoming project, and both the plan to monitor the safety of those subcontractors during contract performance, highlighting what specific management practices will be in place for providing deliberate safety program management and mishap prevention support to those sub-contractors whose EMR is greater than 1.0, whose TRC is greater than 4.0 and whose DART rate is greater than 3.0. Offerors who fail to address either of these items (i.e. whether the safety performance of subcontractors will be evaluated in the selection process for all levels of subcontractors and whether the safety of those subcontractors will be monitored during contract performance) will be rated UNACCEPTABLE.

(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:

(a) Submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment B) for each project included in Factor 1, Subfactor A for Relevant Experience. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. 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. (Note: Clients are highly encouraged to submit questionnaires directly to the Offeror. However, if the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Maria Caceres, maria.caceres1@navy.mil

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor A. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues on the projects for Factor 1, Subfactor A – Explanations shall not exceed two (2) double-sided pages (or four (4) single-sided 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.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

(b) Basis of Evaluation

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1, Subfactor A– Relevant Experience and past performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. 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.

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.

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. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”