00202 RFP_Amendment 0002.pdf

FY20 PAF180300 EARTH COVERED MAGAZINES WON 1606623

RAAFB TINDAL, AUSTRALIA Amendment No. 0002

N62742-20-R-1303

DOCUMENT 00202

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I. GENERAL

1.1. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

2.2 PRICE EVALUATION

2.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

2.4 RATING SCHEME

ATTACHMENTS

(A) Construction Experience Data Sheet

(B) Past Performance Questionnaire

PART I. GENERAL

1.1 INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306 (a)). Therefore, the initial proposal shall conform to the solicitation requirements and should contain the best offer from a technical and price standpoint.

Only the three (3) lowest-priced proposals will be evaluated for fair and reasonable pricing and technical acceptability. If none of the three (3) lowest-priced proposals are found to be technically acceptable, then the next three (3) lowest-priced proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability. If none of the six (6) lowest priced proposals are found to be technically acceptable, then all remaining proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

The Government intends to select the lowest reasonably priced technically acceptable offer and award a contract (within the funds available) without conducting discussions.

1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions with offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the most highly rated. If the Contracting Officer determines the number of proposals 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.

1.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. The awardee’s proposal will be incorporated into the contract and all items proposed will become binding requirements of the contract. By submission of the offer, the offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., subcontractors with teaming agreements, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions must be equal or better and will require prior approval by the Contracting Officer.

PART II. EVALUATION FACTORS / RATING SCHEME

2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the lowest evaluated price of proposals (within the funds available) meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for the technical evaluation factors. An overall technical factor rating must be at least “ACCEPTABLE” in order to be considered for award. An “UNACCEPTABLE” rating in any factor will result in the overall technical proposal being rated “UNACCEPTABLE” unless corrected through discussions. An overall technical rating of “UNACCEPTABLE” will make a proposal ineligible for award.

2.2 PRICE EVALUATION

a. One or more of the following techniques will be used to evaluate the total evaluated prices to ensure that it is fair and reasonable:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate

b. The price proposals will be listed from lowest to highest based on the evaluation criteria stated above.

c. The price proposal will initially be evaluated separately from the technical proposal.

2.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors shall be used to evaluate the technical proposals.

FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: SAFETY

FACTOR 4: MANAGEMENT PLAN

Factor 1 –EXPERIENCE:

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall complete the attached Construction Experience Project Data Sheet (Attachment (A)) for each project submitted and complete all individual blocks. Attachment (A) and all information therein is MANDATORY and SHALL be used to evaluate relevant construction experience. The Government will evaluate only the information provided in Attachment (A) and all other information provided on other than Attachment (A) will not be considered. The Offeror may expand individual blocks on the Attachment (A); however, Attachment (A) for each project submitted shall not exceed a total of four (4) single-sided pages (or, two (2) double-sided pages), 8.5” x 11” (210 x 279 mm), 1” (2.54 cm) margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger for each project submitted.

Information exceeding the four (4) single-sided pages (or two (2) double-sided pages) will not be evaluated. 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 solicitation.

RELEVANT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: Submit a maximum of three (3) construction projects for the Offeror that best demonstrates your experience on relevant construction projects that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation. The Government will only review the first three (3) submitted projects for construction. Any projects submitted in excess of the first three (3) submitted will not be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, a relevant construction project is defined as:

New construction of reinforced concrete structures/buildings with hardened construction to mitigate blast effects to provide protection for personnel or valuable equipment, or an Earth Covered Magazine (ECM), and approximately $5M or more in construction dollar value.

Projects submitted for evaluation must have been completed or substantially completed within the past ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. “Substantially completed” is defined as at least 90% physical completion by the date of solicitation issue. Alteration, renovation, or repair will not be considered a relevant project.

Notes:

1. A relevant construction project is further 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.

2. There is a clear distinction between “experience” and “past performance.” Experience is related to the types and amounts of projects previously accomplished. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed.

3. The “Offeror” is defined as the exact name in Block 14 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award (SF1442). If the Offeror is utilizing experience and past performance information of any entity other than (1) the Offeror; (2) if the Offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract; or (3) a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is now part of the Offeror, the Offeror shall provide in its proposal a fully-executed teaming agreement or other contractual agreement. The teaming agreement or other contractual agreement shall, at a minimum, (1) be signed by the Offeror and the other entity, (2) specifically reference this solicitation/contract, and (3) specify the work to be performed by the other entity such as that it is clear that the other entity will be meaningfully involved in this contract. For item (3), clearly state the specific commitments of resources of the other entity in terms of the work it will specifically perform or manage in the performance of the contract at the worksite. Note that generalized statements concerning commitment of resources are not sufficient to demonstrate that an entity will be meaningfully involved in the performance of the contract.

Examples of “generalized statements” include a commitment of resources merely based on an entity’s “access” to resources and other generalized statements such as an entity will “provide support and expertise on the project.”

The government will only consider information provided in the teaming agreement for the purpose of determining whether the Offeror has clearly demonstrated that any entity (other than the Offeror and, if the offeror is a joint venture, its joint venture partners jointly and severally liable for the contract) will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the contract. For experience and past performance information of a firm that has been acquired by the Offeror and is no longer a separate legal entity, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of the acquisition sufficient to demonstrate that the predecessor firm is now part of the Offeror in Block 1 of Attachment A.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in performing relevant construction projects as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements and paragraph 2.4 Rating Scheme, below.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

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

1. If a completed CPAR or CCASS evaluation is not available, then submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment (B)) for each project included in Factor 1 for Construction Experience. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) shall be completed and signed by the contracting agent and/or their representative responsible for the construction contract administration. A PPQ shall not be from a prime contractor to a subcontractor. The Offeror shall provide completed PPQs in the proposal. Offerors may submit PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 1. 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.

Notes:

1. 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, 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.

2. Performance awards, letter of appreciation, certificates, or additional information submitted will not be considered.

3. See Notes for Factor 1.

(b) Basis of Evaluation

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on how well the Offeror performed on the relevant construction projects submitted under Factor 1 – Experience and past performance on other relevant construction projects currently documented in known sources. In addition to the above, the Government may consider information in the Offeror’s proposal as well as information gathered from other sources including former customers, Government agencies, Federal databases and other references. The information provided by the Offeror may provide the major portion of the information used in the Government’s evaluation for past performance. The Government however, is not restricted to the information provided by the Offeror and may use other sources (such as those listed in the submittal requirements) to assess past performance information.

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 Offeror’s relevant past 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 solicitation.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance. The Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown past performance shall be considered “acceptable.”

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will be as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements and paragraph

2.4 Rating Scheme, below.

Factor 3 – Safety

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit the following information: (For a partnership, joint venture, or LLC etc., separate TRC and DART Rate submittal requirements are required for each partner/member; however, only one safety narrative is required. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member has TRC and/or DART rates, then TRC and DART Rates shall not be submitted for any subcontractors or affiliates of that Offeror/partner/LLC member. If any Offeror/partner/LLC member does not have TRC and/or DART rates, provide an explanation as to why they are unable to provide them and submit TRC and DART information specified in paragraphs (1) below for the firm(s) that will be providing the on-site construction labor resources for that Offeror/partner/LLC member.)

1. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) Rate and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate: Submit the OSHA DART and TRC rates and supporting OSHA 300 log and OSHA Form 300A summary for the three previous complete calendar years (2018, 2017, and 2016). If an offeror does not have the OSHA DART or TRC rates, affirmatively state so and explain why and submit an equivalent based upon the OSHA formula used to calculate DART/TRC. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any increasing DART rate trends and/or any DART rates exceeding

4.0 and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences. Provide an explanation (including any extenuating circumstances) for any increasing TRC rate trends and/or any TRC rates exceeding 5.99 and the actions taken to prevent future occurrences as part of the factor submission. The following provides the OSHA formula for DART and TRC:

Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) rate:

The DART rate is calculated by adding up the number of incidents involving work related deaths, one or more Lost Days, one or more Restricted Days, or the transfer of an employee to a different job within the same company, multiplying that number by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of employee labor hours worked.

Total Number of DART incidents x 200,000 DART Rate = Number of Employee Labor Hours Worked

The Total Recordable Case (TRC) is calculated by multiplying the number of recordable cases by 200,000, and then dividing that number by the number of labor hours.

Total Number of Recordable Cases x 200,000 TRC = Number of employee labor hours worked

“Recordable cases” include each work related death and each work related injury or occupational illness involving days away from work, restricted work, transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness.

2. Technical Approach for Safety: Describe the plan for safety that will be implemented to evaluate safety performance of potential subcontractors as part of the selection process for all levels of subcontractors. The offeror shall submit a narrative that fully describes the safety management system that they will use to oversee the safety compliance and performance of self-performed and subcontractor-performed work. The offeror will describe methods that will be employed to ensure and monitor safe work practices at self-performed and/or all subcontractor levels. Additionally, the contactor will describe their methodology to execute an effective program that facilitates sound mishap prevention techniques and processes, employee reporting of unsafe conditions, unsafe activities, and near-miss mishaps.

There is no page limitation to address paragraph (1) above. The narrative to address paragraph (2) above shall not exceed two (2) pages (single-sided, 8.5” x 11” (210 x 297 mm), 1” (2.54 cm) margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger). Narrative pages shall contain the page number.

Notes:

1. The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of Safety from any and all sources including sources outside the Government. Other sources for safety may include but are not limited to OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS) in Enterprise Safety Applications Management System (ESAMS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other related databases.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will be as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for Factor 3, and paragraph 2.4 Rating Scheme below.

Factor 4 – Management Plan

(a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offer shall provide a detailed narrative of their management plan describing how the Offeror intends to successfully accomplish the requirements of this contract in a small remote location such as RAAF Tindal where labor, materials, and equipment may be difficult to source. The narrative shall not exceed two (2) pages (single-sided, 8.5” x 11” (210 x 297 mm), 1” (2.54 cm) margin left/right/top/bottom, and 10-point font or larger).

As a minimum, the plan shall address the following:

1. Strategy for sourcing labor, equipment, and materials necessary for successful completion of the work.

Describe the planned sources of labor for prime contractor and key subcontractors, and sources for procurement of major equipment and materials. Also, consider and discuss proposed transportation of the equipment and materials to the site.

2. Housing logistics for personnel required to execute and deliver the project within the required project duration.

Consider surge workforce requirements and available sources of existing commercial lodging that may be required to house necessary staff.

(b) Basis of Evaluation:

The basis of evaluation and acceptability will be as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements for Factor 4, and paragraph 2.4 Rating Scheme below.

2.4 RATING SCHEME

The following information is pertinent to the rating of the technical proposals:

a. Deficiency: A material failure of the proposal to meet a Government requirement.

b. If the proposal contains an “UNACCEPTABLE” rating for any of the Factors, the overall rating of the technical proposal will be “UNACCEPTABLE”. An overall technical rating of “UNACCEPTABLE makes a proposal ineligible for award.

FACTOR 1 – EXPERIENCE:

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and includes at least (1) relevant project as defined by the soliciation.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation or does not include any relevant project experience.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

ACCEPTABLE 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.

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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/ unacceptability “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

UNACCEPTABLE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3 - SAFETY:

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 4 – MANAGEMENT PLAN:

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.