Evaluation_Factors_Rev_3_dtd_9-10.pdf

Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Factors (Revision 3 dtd. 9/10/2013)

This procurement is being competed under best value, low price technically acceptable practices. A rating of Unacceptable in any one factor results in the overall technical proposal being rated as Unacceptable. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is that technical factors are equal to each other. The combined non-cost/price factors are approximately equal to price.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Safety Evaluation Factor 4 – Schedule Factor 5 – Corporate Experience

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.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) Provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firms including the proposed primary sliding steel security door fabricating firm for this contract and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). The narrative shall also include a simple organizational chart that clearly identifies the lines of authority between the entities.

The technical approach narrative shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) including the organizational chart. The information requested in item #2 below is not included in this page limitation.

(2) In addition to the narrative, the Offeror shall submit a signed copy of a joint venture agreement, partnership agreement, teaming agreement, or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture partner, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.).

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to evaluate the organizational structure and teaming relationships proposed by the Offeror.

This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

Factor 2 – 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 5 for construction 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 shall 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, Ken Seymour at Kenneth.d.seymour@navy.mil

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.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

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

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.

The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

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

Factor 3 – Safety Evaluation

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

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years, submit your EMR (which compares your company’s annual losses in insurance claims against its policy premiums over a three year period). If you have no EMR, affirmatively state so, and explain why. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(2) OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate: For the three 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 and upward or downward trends should be addressed as part of this element. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan that the Offeror will implement to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors, as a part of the selection process for all levels of 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.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation: The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall safety record, the Offeror’s plan to select and monitor subcontractors, and any innovative safety methods that the Offeror plans to implement for this procurement. The Government’s sources of information for evaluating safety may include, but are not limited to, OSHA, NAVFAC’s Facility Accident and Incident Reporting (FAIR) database, and other related databases. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete safety information regarding these submittal requirements rests with the Offeror. The evaluation will collectively consider the following:

- Experience Modification Rate (EMR)

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

- Offeror Technical Approach to Safety

- Other sources of information available to the Government

(1) Experience Modification Rate (EMR): The Government will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating. Lower EMRs will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(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 has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward or downward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rates. Lower OSHA DART Rates will be given greater weight in the evaluation.

(3) Technical Approach to Safety: The Government 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 Government will also evaluate the narrative to determine the degree to which innovations are being proposed that may enhance safety on this procurement. 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.

Factor 4 - Schedule

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror should submit a construction schedule illustrating a six month period of performance starting with Contract Award Date 30 September 2013 followed by a 30 day period for administrative requirements documented in the contract specifications including, but not limited to, bonding, base access, permits, environmental compliance, and safety. Show in the schedule the sequence in which the Offeror proposes to perform the work and dates on which the Offeror contemplates starting and completing all schedule activities. The Offeror should submit the following information to describe the proposed construction methodology and to demonstrate that the project can be completed within the specified period of performance:

a. A Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule in sufficient detail to adequately describe the timeframe to complete all schedule activities. At a minimum, provided the following activities as critical path items:

1. Fabrication of single steel sliding door

2. Foundation installation

3. Structural head wall installation

4. Security pilaster installation

5. Single steel sliding door installation

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The evaluation will be based upon a CPM schedule meeting or exceeding the contract completion date while allowing adequate time for construction oversight, inspection, and coordination for the critical path items listed.

Factor 5 – Corporate Experience

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors are to submit previous experience information on not less than three and not more than five projects for each company on the Offeror’s team performed since 07 June 2008 that best demonstrates the company’s and proposed team members’ construction performance for projects similar in scope, size, and complexity. Provide construction awards and customer letters of commendation for projects submitted.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s corporate experience considering projects of similar size, scope and complexity. A project of similar size, scope and complexity is a project with similar characteristics, design and end product. When evaluating corporate experience of projects similar in size, scope, and complexity, the Government will consider highly qualified Offerors to be those who have experience with fabricating and installing sliding steel security doors for munitions storage magazines.

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 siz...