Attachment 23 1502000 M Boilers.pdf

1502000 – Facility Investment

SECTION M: 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 overall non-price factors rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” makes a proposal ineligible for award.

B. 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.

C. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience

Factor 2 – Safety

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Note to Offerors: 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. Submittal Requirements and Basis of Evaluation for Each Factor.

(a) Price:

(1) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offorer shall submit one (1) electronic proposal emailed to Rebecca Spaulding at:

rebecca.j.spaulding.civ@us.navy.mil with the following:

Signed Solicitation (SF1442) including the price filled in for CLINS 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, &

0005 with all amendments acknowledged via signature.

Completed Bid Schedule for each CLIN Confirmation of Representation and Certifications from SAM Confirm submission of the most recent VETS 4212 Report Include a cover page with solicitation number, solicitation title, Prime Contractor name, address, phone number, Cage Code, Unique Entity ID, Point of Contact with phone number and email address.

Provide name of financial institution, point of contact, telephone number and email address as well as a signed statement of release giving the reference permission to release information to the Navy.

(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 (see Section B of the solicitation). The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M 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) Technical Factors:

1. Factor 1: Corporate Experience:

Qualifications: Firms must be engaged in repair and alteration of high-pressure steam boilers and shall possess a State Unlimited Contractor License. Welders shall possess a National Board “R’ stamp for the repair of boilers and high-pressure vessels and other pressure-retaining items. Requirements are included in the current edition of the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC), Part 3, Section 1.

Boilermakers shall possess a State Unlimited Journeyman License. Welders and boilermakers employed at the work site shall be certified by the contractor as full qualified journeymen. Journeymen helpers shall be trade experienced.

i. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: Submit a minimum of one (1) to a maximum of three (3) projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the RFP, unless Offeror is a Joint Venture.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, a minimum of one (1) projects per partner must be submitted. For Purposes of this solicitation, a relevant project must include repairs to Boilers and Associated Systems. The project should be completed by your firm within the past five

(5) years. Use the attached Corporate Experience Form (Attachment D) to submit projects.

Project description for each project shall explain the detailed scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP.

Size, scope and complexity are further defined as follows:

Size: A maintenance and repair contract with a yearly value of at least $500,000 or greater.

Scope: Demonstrate the ability to provide maintenance and repair of High-Capacity Boilers (including Central Utility Plant Boilers), Hot Water Production Systems and High-Pressure Steam Distribution.

Complexity: Demonstrate the ability to respond to maintenance requirements for repair, alteration, demolition and minor construction on equipment listed in attachment J-1502000- 07 or similar.

ii. Basis of Evaluation: Recent: project completed within the last 5 years. Relevancy: projects are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the project required by the RFP. The proposal is technical acceptable when it demonstrates it is recent and relevant.

Proposals that fail to use the attached Corporate Experience form will NOT be evaluated All projects submitted which are outside of the specified 5 year period will NOT be evaluated.

Proposals that fail to provide all requested data, and accessible point of contact or correct phone may result in the project NOT being evaluated.

Proposals that fail to submit projects for all venture partners will NOT be evaluated.

FACTOR 2: Safety Evaluation

i. Solicitation Submittal Requirements: The Offeror shall submit the following information:

The Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate; and Total Case Rate (TCR) for the specified five (5) Calendar Years (CY), as well as a safety narrative, as described below. For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART and TCR rates for the specified five (5) CY for each contractor who is part of the partnership/joint venture; however, only one safety narrative is required. Any fatalities experienced within this 5-year timeframe must be explained in detail, to include root cause and corrective actions.

NOTE: DART and TCR shall not be submitted for subcontractors

1. DART Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY2019, CY2020, CY2021, CY2022, and CY2023] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

a. DART cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, and/or restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness.

b. Calculation of DART rate: Multiply the total number of DART cases by

200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked

2. TCR Rate: Submit five (5) previous complete calendar years’ [CY20XX, 20XX, 20XX, 20XX, and 20XX] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why.

a. TCR cases include injuries or illnesses resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job days beyond the day of injury/illness, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

b. Calculation of TCR rate: Multiply the total number of TCR incidents by 200,000, and then divide by the number of employee labor hours worked

3. Technical Approach to Safety: Submit a narrative that addresses the following:

a. Describe the Offeror’ s approach to implementing and executing a Safety Management System (SMS) including Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describe the evaluation process used to select potential subcontractors.

c. Describe the processes of how the Offeror will oversee safety compliance of subcontractors at all levels throughout performance of the contract (to include the Offeror’s own in-house workforce).

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page.

3. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

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. To meet the minimum requirements, the Offeror must demonstrate the following:

1. DART rates at or below 2.99

2. TCR Rates at or below 4.49

NOTE: If the Offeror’s rates exceed the established levels above for any of the five years, it will result in a deficiency.

3. Technical Approach to Safety

a. Offeror describes a viable SMS that addresses elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Offeror describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

c. Offeror describes a logical management plan to hold both themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

4. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

FACTOR 3: Past Performance Evaluation

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 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 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 (insert applicable factor number, usually Factor 1, and insert factor title, usually 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 (Attachment C), 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, Rebecca Spaulding, via email at rebecca.j.spaulding.civ@us.navy.mil 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.

Also include performance recognition documents received within the last three (3) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation are as follows:

- Past performance information provided by the offeror, as solicited;

- Past performance information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition; and

- Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

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., CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained for 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.);

- Tasks that are identical to, similar to, or related to the task at hand”