Medical MACC Evaluation Factors.docx

PHASE ONE

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

The composition and management of the firms proposed for a typical team for this contract will be evaluated in this factor.

The Offeror shall submit the following information under Tab “1”:

(1) Using Exhibit “A” (Offeror Team Composition and Management), provide a narrative describing the proposed primary construction firm(s) and the rationale for proposing this arrangement. Provide the role, responsibilities, and contractual relationships between the various firms (see FAR Subpart 9.6). If the experience of an entity is being claimed in Factor 2, that entity must be named in the above narrative.

The technical approach narrative (Exhibit A) shall be limited to one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages). 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, approved Mentor-Protégé agreement (MPA), or letter of commitment for each member of the Offeror’s team identified above (e.g., joint venture member, partner, team member, subcontractor, parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated company, etc.). If the Offeror is proposing as a Mentor-Protégé joint venture, the Offeror shall submit the SBA approved Mentor Protégé joint venture agreement with the SBA approval letter of the Mentor Protégé agreement and any subsequent extensions.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

The assessment of the Offeror’s technical approach will be used as a means to evaluate the teaming relationships (if any) proposed by the Offeror. This factor will be rated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

FACTOR 2: CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE (See definition)

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

Submit Exhibit “B” (Construction Experience Project Data Sheet) under Tab “2.”

(1) Construction Experience:

The offeror shall submit a maximum of five (5) relevant construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrate self-performed (see definition) experience on projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to projects that may be ordered under this contract. All projects shall have been performed by the Offeror as the prime contractor.

For purposes of this evaluation, relevant projects are further defined as, renovation, and/or new construction of medical treatment facilities. For the purposes of this evaluation, “Medical Treatment Facilities” are hospitals, ambulatory care centers, medical and dental clinics, and medical research laboratories. The medical treatment facilities must consist of reinforced concrete or structural steel frame with a construction cost of $15,000,000 or more and a minimum of 35,000 square feet.

Note: Renovation and phased projects under this contract will require contractors to work in or adjacent to facilities that will be in full operation. The contractor will be required to minimize interference with daily operation of the facilities and will be required to comply with requirements of a number of regulatory and accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission and construction requirements such as infection control, life safety and applicable codes and Uniform Facilities Criteria (UFC).

Additional minimum submission requirements:

· At least two (2) relevant projects that demonstrate experience in design-bid-build (see definition) construction.

· At least two (2) relevant projects that demonstrate experience in performing primarily renovation (see definition) of existing medical facilities.

· At least three (3) relevant projects that demonstrate experience in primarily new construction (see definition) of medical facilities.

· At least two (2) relevant projects that demonstrate experience with infection control.

· At least one (1) relevant project with construction cost of $50,000,000 or more.

Note: A single project may satisfy more than one of the above minimum requirements.

Exhibit “B” must clearly address how the project meets the above requirements.

Projects submitted for the Offeror shall be 100% complete (see definition) within the past seven (7) years of the date of issuance of this RFP. Projects which are not 100% complete as of the date of issuance of this RFP shall not be considered.

A project is defined as a construction project with a single starting point and a single ending point, 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 attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Exhibit “B”) 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 and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP (how the project meets the requirements listed above). In addition, the description shall also address any sustainable features (see definition) for the project, including specific descriptions of those features. Provide applicable documentation on projects that were validated and/or certified through U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) or an equivalent organization or process. Projects that are not sufficiently described so as to demonstrate compliance with the above requirements may be deemed not relevant.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects shall be submitted for each Joint Venture member. Offerors who fail to submit experience for each Joint Venture member may be rated lower. 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 and address is not exactly as stated on the SF1442), the proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD firm will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract, and describe how it will have meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract. Regarding any such submitted project, if the Offeror fails to demonstrate the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD firm’s meaningful involvement in the performance of this contract, the project will not be considered relevant and will not be evaluated.

The Offeror may NOT utilize experience of a subcontractor to demonstrate construction experience under this evaluation factor.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s Team’s demonstrated experience and depth of experience in performing relevant construction projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s Team’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. The Government will only review five (5) projects for construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the five (5) for Construction Experience and five (5) for Design Experience will not be considered.

Offerors who submit relevant projects that demonstrate additional experience with construction projects of $50,000,000 and above, beyond the one (1) required project, may be considered more favorably than those that do not.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with infection control beyond the two (2) required projects may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate additional infection control experience.

Relevant projects that demonstrate experience with sustainable features (see definition) may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with sustainable features.

Relevant design projects where the proposed design firm demonstrates experience with the use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) to develop the design model for design projects may be considered more favorably than those that do not demonstrate experience with the use of BIM.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

Submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Exhibit “C”) and CCASS/ACASS/CPARS evaluations under Tab “2” immediately following each of the project data sheets to which they pertain. Submit any other past performance information under Tab “3.”

IF A COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR APPRAISAL SUPPORT SYSTEM (CCASS) OR CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT RATING SYSTEM (CPARS) EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PROPOSAL FOR EACH PROJECT INCLUDED IN FACTOR 2 FOR CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CCASS, ACASS, OR CPARS EVALUATION, the Past Performance Questionnaire (Exhibit “C”) is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project included in Factor 2 for Construction Experience. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

IF A CPARS EVALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with your proposal. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Exhibit “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 points of contact, Mica Paulson and Anna Kurzeja, via email at mica.paulson@navy.mil and Anna.Kurzeja@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.

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 one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages) in total.

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

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included as Exhibit “C”.

b. 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 (FAPISS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), performance recognition documents, and information obtained from any other source) reflect a trend of satisfactory performance considering:

- A pattern of successful completion of tasks;

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

- A pattern of cooperativeness and teamwork with the Government at all levels (task managers, contracting officers, auditors, etc.); and

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

PHASE TWO

FACTOR 4: SAFETY

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

Submit Exhibit “D” Safety Data Sheet/ Safety Narrative) under Tab “4”. Individual blocks on this form may be expanded.

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 further below. For a partnership or joint venture, the Offeror shall submit separate DART rates and TCR 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’ [CY2020, CY2019, CY2018, CY2017, and CY2016] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

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’ [CY2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, and 2016] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should a negative trend occur above moderate risk levels, an acceptable/detailed explanation is required that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

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.

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.

b. 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 evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

1. DART Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the Offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing DART rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

d. This chart correlates the DART rate to the level of risk:

2. TCR Rate: The board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the Offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing TCR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

d. This chart correlates the TCR rate to the level of risk:

3. The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. To determine the degree to which the Offeror:

a. 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. Describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

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

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one (1) double-sided page. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered.

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 5: TECHNICAL SOLUTION – Based on Proposed Task Order 0001

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

Submit the Technical Solution narrative and drawings under Tab “5.”

Provide a narrative, not to exceed one (1) double-sided page (or two (2) single-sided pages), describing the technical solution to working on the project in a high water table area with a requirement for water decontamination. Address the following items in the narrative:

- Description of how construction will take place in a high water table area.

- Description of how the water contaminated with PFAS will be decontaminated.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the narrative considering the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the engineering requirements of the project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical solution to determine adherence to the technical requirements of the RFP.

FACTOR 6: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

All Offerors (large businesses only) shall use Exhibit "E" (Small Business Participation Plan) to submit (under Tab "6") the following requested information for evaluation of this factor:

· To demonstrate commitment to use small business concerns in the performance of this contract, identify at least three (3) 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 of product/service to be subcont racted, the estimated subcontract value, and the type of commitment (i.e., teaming agreement , letter of commitment, etc.) to each subcontractor. Offerors are encouraged to identify and commit to additional small business concerns in each of the small business categories (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB , and SDVOSB) consistent with efficient contract performance.

· To demonstrate maximum practicable participation of small businesses, identify (in terms of dollar value and percentage of the total contract value) the Offeror' s total proposed 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). All Offerors who are not able to meet the minimum total small business participation rate (22% of the total contract value of $1,000,000,000) shall provide a detailed explanation why the minimum total small business participation rate cannot be achieved. 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. If the Offeror does not intend to subcontract, the Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance.

Note: Large business Offerors selected for award shall be required to submit an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan incorporating the proposed subcontract values and small business concerns that are specifically identified in the Offeror's Small Business Participation Plan. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall also include small business subcontracting goals that meet or exceed the minimum small business subcontracting targets stated in the table below. If the Offeror fails to negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan, the Offeror will be ineligible for award.

Minimum Small Business Subcontracting Targets

Percentage of Total Subcontracting Value

b. Basis of Evaluation:

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

The following will be evaluated on all proposals; however, in accordance with 13 CFR §125.3(g)(3), Subcontracting Consideration in Source Selection, small business Offerors shall receive the maximum rating of Acceptable under this evaluation factor without having to submit any information in connection with this factor.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Small Business Participation Plan to determine that the Offeror has identified and demonstrated a commitment to use at least three (3) small business concerns in each specific small business category (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB , and SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract.

Proposals that fail to identify and commit to use at least three (3) small business concerns in each specific small business category (i.e., SB, HUBZone SB, WOSB, SDB, VOSB , and SDVOSB) in the performance of this contract may be rated Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account reasonable explanations why subcontracting would not result in efficient contract performance.

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror' s Small Business Participation Plan to determine that the Offeror has demonstrated the maximum practicable participation of small businesses by meeting or exceeding the solicitation' s minimum total small business participation rate (i.e. work to be performed by small business as the prime contractor and/or work to be performed by small business subcontractors). The minimum total small business participation rate for this acquisition is 22%% of the total contract value of $1,000,000,000.

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

· Proposals that fail to demonstrate a total small business participation rate of at least 22% may be rated Unacceptable; however, the Government may take into account reasonable explanations why the minimum total small business participation rate cannot be achieved.

FACTOR 7: PRICE – Based on Proposed Task Order 0001

a. Proposal Submission Requirements:

The Offeror (see definition) shall complete and submit (in a sealed envelope) the following in the order shown below under Tab “7” of the original proposal only.

With regard to price as shown on the SF 1442, the only Contract Line Item that Offerors are to complete is Line Item 0002 of Section 00010 Solicitation for Proposed Task Order 0001.

Failure to submit a Bid Bond conforming to the requirements of the solicitation may result in an Offeror's proposal being rejected as unacceptable.

b. Basis of Evaluation:

The price proposal for Proposed Task Order 0001 will be evaluated to determine the reasonableness and completeness of the Offeror’s proposal. The following techniques will be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

In addition, one or more of the following techniques may also be utilized:

A price that is found to be unreasonably high in relation to the proposed work may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the overall proposal not being considered for award.

Any inconsistency whether real or apparent, between proposed performance and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an apparently unbalanced/inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price reasonableness rests solely with the Offeror.