Attachment I - Revised Evaluation Factors.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD REVISED

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 (LPTA) 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. 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.

5. 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 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 past performance will be evaluated separately. Upon the conclusion of the evaluation of the technical factors, 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. 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, the first requirement for relevance is recency, a recent project as one being 100% completed five (5) years from the time of submission. Relevancy refers to construction work as a prime contractor or sub-contractor on a contract of similar size and scope. Two projects with rigging and installing museum artifacts within an existing building shell with a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $250,000.00 or as a prime contractor whereby the major subcontractor performed this same work and magnitude as above. One project with fabrication and installation of artifact support structures for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $100,000.00.

(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:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Small Business Utilization and Participation Factor 3 – Experience Factor 4 – Safety Factor 5 – 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, Gof the RFP.

(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) Technical Factors:

(1) Factor 1, Technical Acceptability:

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The attached Offeror Team Composition and Management (EXHIBIT A) is MANDATORY and SHALL be used. In addition to the completed EXHIBIT A, submit a written technical construction management approach plan that demonstrates understanding and capabilities of completing all work in accordance with the Statement of Work and project drawings. The plan shall not exceed five (5) double-sided pages (or ten (10) single sided pages). At a minimum, the plan shall include:

1) Sequencing and Schedule rigging and moving large museum artifacts in a confined environment fabricating and installing supports for large museum artifacts sequencing of installing exhibit supports and museum artifacts into various galleries an over-all understanding of the sequence of work within a building that will remain occupied

2) Technical Qualification of Proposed Staffing

Identify all work that can be accomplished with in-house resources

Identify the ability to obtain project requirements that cannot be self-performed.

Identify and submit a list of proposed subcontractors

Address the technical qualifications for the following:

o site superintendent - to be considered qualified, the individual shall be a 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 interior renovations work in the field with a construction company.

o 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.

o 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.

Provide a letter of commitment (signed by the individual and the Offeror for the site superintendent, quality control manager, and SSHO.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

An Offeror’s proposal will be rated “Acceptable” if the Offeror provided a completed Exhibit A, and provided a technical construction management approach plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the work in accordance with the Statement of Work and project drawings; the plan demonstrates a good understanding and capability of the elements in the sequencing and schedule and the technical qualifications of the site superintendent, quality control manager, and SSHO; and a letter of commitment was submitted with the proposal.

An Offeror’s proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” if the Offeror failed to provide a completed Exhibit A, the technical construction management approach plan failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of the work in accordance with the Statement of Work and project drawings; the plan failed to demonstrate a good understanding and capability of the elements in the sequencing and schedule and the technical qualifications of the site superintendent, quality control manager, and SSHO; or a letter of commitment was not submitted with the proposal.

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

(2) Factor 2, Small Business Utilization and Participation

It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to Small Business (SB) concerns, including Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), and other small business concerns. Further, it is the policy of the Government that such concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient performance.

This Factor assesses both the historical achievements in utilizing small business concerns and the proposed small business participation commitment for this requirement. The Offeror is required to demonstrate its previous commitment to SBs through its record of past utilization of SBs and its planned level of commitment to small business if awarded a contract under this solicitation.

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

1. All Offerors (both Other than Small Businesses (OTSB) AND SBs shall use EXHIBIT B (Historical Small Business Utilization) to demonstrate their historical utilization of SBs.

EXHIBIT B shall be provided for each project submitted under Factor 3, Experience. Failure to submit EXHIBIT B for each project submitted under Factor 3, Experience, or the failure to fully complete EXHIBIT B may result in a deficiency.

2. All Offerors (both OTSBs and SBs) shall use EXHIBIT C (Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SPCD)) to submit the following required information for evaluation of this factor:

• To demonstrate commitment to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract, identify all planned subcontractors by name that will be used to support each specific small business category (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB).

Identify the type and complexity of product/service to be subcontracted, the estimated subcontract value, and the type of commitment (i.e., teaming agreement, letter of commitment, etc.) with each subcontractor.

• To demonstrate maximum practicable participation of small businesses, identify (in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value) the Offeror’s proposed small business participation. The minimum required small business participation (i.e. work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors) is 20%. All Offerors who are not able to meet the minimum total small business participation rate of 20% (of the total contract value) shall provide a detailed explanation why the minimum total small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

Large business Offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation rate through subcontracting to small businesses.

Small business Offerors may achieve the minimum total small business participation rate through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and/or subcontracting with other small business concerns.

Offerors are encouraged to exceed this percentage and seek meaningful levels of participation in each of the small business categories (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) consistent with efficient contract performance. Offerors are required to provide a detailed explanation for the methods used to develop the small business participation rates.

Offerors simply proposing a 20% total small business participation rate without describing the methods used may be rated lower.

If the Offeror does not intend to subcontract, provide a detailed explanation why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance.

Note: The small business participation and commitment strategies evaluated under this factor do not replace small business subcontracting plans. Offerors representing as other than small businesses must submit acceptable small business subcontracting plans using the SBSP (template) in order to be eligible for award (FAR 19.702(a)(1)).

(i) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the likelihood of success in achieving the small business objectives of this acquisition based on the following:

• The extent to which the Offeror is able to demonstrate a history of supporting Government policies concerning the utilization of small business concerns (including all of the various socioeconomic categories of small business, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) and the success in achieving goals established by subcontracting plans on prior contracts.

• The extent to which the Offeror has demonstrated an achievable commitment to use small businesses (including HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract in the SBPCD. The SBPCD will be evaluated to determine the extent to which small business concerns are specifically identified by name and socioeconomic category in the document and the quantitative degree to which small business concerns (including HUBZone, WOSB, SDB, VOSB, and SDVOSB) will participate relative to the total contract value. The complexity and variety of the work small business concerns will perform and the degree of commitment to use named sources through formal teaming agreements, letters of intent/commitment will be evaluated to assess achievability of the commitment. This minimum small business participation rate, through work performed by the small business prime and/or subcontracting with small businesses, shall exceed 20% of the total contract value, unless the Offeror provides a reasonable and well-documented explanation for why 20% small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

The offeror will be rated Acceptable if the offeror submitted the ISRs for the projects indicated in the Experience Factor, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C. The proposal demonstrates a history of successfully supporting Government policies concerning utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors including, when applicable, achievements against established small business subcontracting plan goals.

The offeror will be rated Unacceptable if the offeror failed to submit the ISRs for the projects indicated in the Experience Factor, Exhibit B, or Exhibit C. The proposal failed to demonstrate a history of successfully supporting Government policies concerning utilization of small business concerns as subcontractors including, when applicable, achievements against established small business subcontracting plan goals.

If an offeror has not used any subcontractors in the performance of any work in the past, the offeror shall submit a narrative outlining the plan on utilization of small businesses concerns and any socio-economic business concerns. Plans that demonstrate the work being subcontract to the small business or any socio-economic business concerns that are meaningful and meets the small business goals shall be rated Acceptable; Plans that merely parrot, or paraphrase, the requirements above, shall be rated Unacceptable.

(3) Factor 3, Experience

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information:

The submittal should not exceed not exceed five (5) double-sided pages (or ten (10) single sided pages). Submit a minimum of three (3) recent and relevant projects that best demonstrates the offeror’s 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 macro artifacts. 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 or sub-contractor on a contract of similar size and scope. Two projects with rigging and installing museum artifacts within and existing building shell with a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $250,000.00. One project with fabrication and installation of artifact support structures for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $100,000.00. If the offeror utilized the experience of a subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor, the offeror must provide a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFP

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 E) 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).

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity or the Joint Venture partners. Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

If an Offeror is utilizing experience information of affiliates/subsidiaries/parent/LLC/LTD member companies (name is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract in order for the past performance information of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies to be considered. The proposal shall state specific commitments of technical resources (e.g.

personnel, equipment) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies commit to the performance of this contract. In particular, the proposal will clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member that will be located at the worksites and company offices in the city/area of the project. The proposal shall also describe specific roles of the affiliate/subsidiary/ parent/LLC/LTD member companies in terms of the work it will either self-perform or manage on behalf of the Offeror in performance of the contract. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) will not be considered.

(b) 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 two projects rigging and installing museum artifacts within an existing building shell with a dollar magnitude equal to or greater than $250,000.00 and one project with fabrication and installation of artifact support structures for a dollar magnitude equal to or greater than $100,000.00 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 “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; two projects with rigging and installing museum artifacts within and existing building shell with a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $250,000.00. One project with fabrication and installation of artifact support structures for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $100,000.00; and the proposal included a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract, if subcontractor experience is utilized.

An Offeror’s proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” if the Offeror failed to submit a minimum of three (3) projects for “Experience;” failed to provide two projects with rigging and installing museum artifacts within and existing building shell with a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $250,000.00; failed to provide one project with fabrication and installation of artifact support structures for a dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than, $100,000.00; and the proposal failed to include a letter of commitment and an explanation of the meaningful involvement that the subcontractor will have in performance of this contract, if subcontractor experience is utilized.

4) Factor 4, Safety

(a) 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. TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for subcontractors.)

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

For the five (5) [INSERT EXACT YEARS REQUIRED] previous complete calendar years, 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 the five (5) [INSERT EXACT YEARS REQUIRED] previous complete calendar years, 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) Technical Approach for Safety:

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.

(5) Factor 5, Past Performance:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 1.

If there is not a completed CCASS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (EXHIBIT F) for each project included in Factor 1. 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. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Deidre Parker at Deidre.parker@navy.mil.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 2 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. 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. 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 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.

Performance award or additional information submitted will not be considered.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), past performance should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity or the Joint Venture partners.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 2 – 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.

The offeror will be rated Acceptable if 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 offeror will be rated Unacceptable if 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.

mailto:Deidre.parker@navy.mil

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.”