20R1801_SECTION M_AMD4.pdf

N62742-20-R-1801

Amendment 0004

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M1 COMPETITIVE RANGE:

The Government intends to evaluate all proposals received and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. However, if discussions are deemed necessary, to maximize the Government's ability to obtain the best value, discussions will be held with those offerors within the competitive range. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the most highly qualified proposals, considering cost and technical factors.

M2 ORAL PRESENTATIONS:

If discussions are deemed necessary, the Government reserves the right to request oral presentations with offerors within the competitive range. The oral presentation will be to augment the offeror's written proposal.

M3. 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. By submission of the offer, the offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, approach, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

M4 BASIS OF AWARD

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering Cost and Non-Cost evaluation factors. Award may be made to other than the lowest cost offeror or other than the highest Non-Cost rated offeror. Business judgment and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposal offering the best value to the

Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decision.

M5 EVALUATION FACTORS

(1) The evaluation factors are as follows:

I. Non-Cost Evaluation Factors:

FACTOR 1, CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2, SAFETY

FACTOR 3, PAST PERFORMANCE

II. Cost

(2) The relative order of importance of the non-cost evaluation factors is as follows: Factor (1) Corporate

Experience and Factor (2) Safety are of equal importance to each other; and, when combined are equal in importance to Factor (3) Past Performance. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the three non-cost factors combined are significantly more important than cost.

(3) NON-COST EVALUATION FACTORS (FACTORS 1, 2, AND 3)

a. NOTES applicable to Factor 1, Corporate Experience and Factor 3, Past Performance on Recent, Relevant Projects:

(1) Definition of “recent relevant project” is as follows:

A. In general, relevant project means projects whose scopes of work were similar to the types of projects that may be ordered against this contract that require the performance of one or more of the Specific Tasks described in Section C, paragraph 1.2. A relevant project must be either a standalone contract or task order under an

Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract. The submission of information or the description of the scope of a Basic IDIQ contract will not be considered a relevant project, except in Section M, paragraph

M5.(3).b.(2)c and Attachment J.10, Key Personnel Experience/Qualifications. Information may be provided on

Basic IDIQ contracts on Attachment J.10 for the Program Manager, Senior Project Manager, Contract

Administration Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and Health and Safety Manager

B. A relevant project shall also be for an amount of at least $200,000 in dollar value and shall be at least 85% financially executed as of the issuance date of this solicitation. A relevant project shall involve performance of remedial action services.

C. Recent is defined as five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation, except in regards to

Key Personnel in which recent is defined as within the last ten (10) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

(2) The distinction between Corporate Experience and Past Performance is that Corporate Experience pertains to the volume of work completed by a contractor that are comparable to the types of work described under the definition of recent, relevant projects, 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.

(3) Definition: “Offeror” typically refers to a single corporation or business entity submitting the proposal as a prime contractor. “Offeror” is also defined as other legal entities such as joint ventures, Limited Partnerships

(LTD), or a Limited Liability Company (LLC). In its evaluation of past performance and experience, the

Government’s evaluation will generally focus on the entity submitting the proposal (single corporation, individual joint venture partners, or the LTD or LLC identified on the SF33). Entities may not submit as Prime on more than one offer. Failure to comply with this may result in disqualification of the Offeror for contract award.

(4) If an Offeror is utilizing or relying on experience or past performance information from affiliates/ subsidiaries/parent companies/LLC/LTD member companies (where their name is not exactly as stated on the

SF33), the proposal shall clearly explain the nature of the involvement of the affiliate/subsidiary/parent firm/LLC/LTD member companies in the performance of the contract. The proposal shall state the specific resources (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) that the affiliate/subsidiary/parent/LLC/LTD member companies will commit toward the performance of the contract. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated in the proposal, the affiliate, subsidiary or parent company’s experience or past performance and/or key personnel information will not be considered. Documentation shall be limited to five (5) single-sided pages and shall be included within Volume II, Factor 1.

(5) A subcontractor’s experience and past performance will not be given the same level of consideration as either a prime contractor or a joint venture partner because there is no direct legal relationship between the

Government and a subcontractor. The Government may consider the experience or past performance of a subcontractor where the prime contractor provides, in its proposal, evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of the subcontractor. However, the level of consideration will depend on the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the subcontractor's commitment to the project and legal accountability and will not be accorded the same level of consideration as a prime contractor’s experience or past performance.The Government reserves the right to consider the experience or past performance of a subcontractor. If the Government chooses to do so, the subcontractor’s experience and past performance will not be given the same level of consideration as either the prime contractor or a joint venture partner.

(6) Prime contractor and prime contractor-subcontractor teams/Joint Ventures/LLCs/LTDs with a demonstrated history of working successfully together on prior projects may be considered more favorably than those without such history.

(7) If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), relevant project experience should be submitted for projects completed by the Joint Venture entity, if available. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for any of the Joint Venture members. Projects completed by the JV that are relevant may be considered more favorably than projects submitted by the individual JV members. Offerors who submit experience for all Joint Venture partners may be considered more favorably. Offerors are still limited to a total of eight (8) projects combined for Attachment J.8.

(8) If an Offeror is relying on the experience performed under a previous JV, the Offeror shall demonstrate what portion of the work was performed by the entity offering on this contract under the prior JV and shall not include work performed by the JV as a whole unless all members of the prior JV are being proposed under this solicitation.

b. EVALUATION FACTOR 1, CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

(1) The Offeror will demonstrate its technical experience and expertise in performing the requirements of this solicitation and their ability to recruit and employ qualified Key Personnel. This technical factor will be used to evaluate the probability of successful accomplishment of the work contemplated under this contract.

(2) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

Offerors shall:

a. Use Attachment J.8 to describe experiences with no more than eight (8) recent, relevant projects completed that individually or collectively are similar in scope, complexity, and size to the work described in Section

C. The Offeror shall not submit more than two (2) pages single-sided per project. If more than two (2) pages are submitted, the agency will not consider the information on the additional pages.

b. Use Attachment J.9 to describe capability and capacity to deliver products similar to the type and complexity of the tasks described in Section C of this solicitation assuming a workload of at least ten (10) recent, relevant projects totaling a minimum of $10 million at a minimum of two (2) locations within the

NAVFAC Pacific area of responsibility, as described in Section C subparagraph 1.1, occurring concurrently. The combined submittal for Attachment J.9 shall not exceed ten (10) single-sided pages.

c. Use Attachment J.10 to detail experience for each person who will be assigned as Key Personnel to work on this contract. Key personnel are the Program Manager, Senior Project Manager, Contract

Administration Manager, Quality Assurance (QA) Manager, and Health and Safety Manager. The Offeror shall not submit more than four (4) pages single-sided per person submitted as Key Personnel. The Offeror shall provide information on a maximum of four (4) recent, relevant projects that were completed by each

Key Personnel that would demonstrate their project experience. Experience that is not related to the work described in Section C of this solicitation should not be included in Attachment J.10. Letters of commitment shall be submitted for all key personnel including prime contractor-subcontractor teams/Joint

Venture/LLCs/LTDs key personnel that does not currently work for the Offeror. Letters of commitment shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages and submitted with Attachment J.10. Letters of commitment page limit does not apply toward the overall page limit of Attachment J.10. Offerors shall not submit

Attachment J.10 for personnel who will not be assigned as Key Personnel under this contract. Key

Personnel experience may include experience gained while not employed by the Offeror.

Contractors are required to use the Attachments noted above to document experience. Experience that is provided outside the furnished attachments will not be considered.

(3) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates recent, relevant Corporate and Key

Personnel experience by the Offeror (including an evaluation of the applicable credentials such as training, education, and experience of Key Personnel) in performing the depth, breadth, and volume of work in Section C of this solicitation. Experience will be evaluated on the (1) complexity, (2) scope, (3) contract volume/project size and (4) location of the work performed as compared to the requirements contemplated under this solicitation and described in Section C.

a. Minimum Required Experience: To be considered for this contract, the Offeror must demonstrate experience (in Corporate AND Key Personnel experience) in the following tasks described in Section C of this solicitation:

Removal actions at sites regulated under CERCLA

Soil and/or sediment remediation of various contaminants at sites regulated under CERCLA

Expedited response actions

Munitions response actions and closures

Management as the prime contractor on a cost IDIQ contract

b. Corporate and Key Personnel experience in sediment removal and/or remediation may be evaluated more favorably.

c. Minimum Key Personnel Requirements: Key personnel must meet the education, training, and experience qualifications described in Section C, paragraph 1.3.3 to be considered for this contract.

d. Reserved

e. Offerors who demonstrate experience working for the Navy/Marine Corps may be evaluated more favorably.

f. Experience that provides relevant innovative approaches to performance of work described in Section C may be evaluated more favorably. An innovative approach should provide a cost savings and should be different from the industry standard.

g. Project experience working in the majority of the following locations (Guam, Hawaii, California, and the

Northern Marianas Islands) may be evaluated more favorably.

h. Offerors who demonstrate a substantial amount of concurrent projects containing various remedies or in excess of $10 million in value may be considered more favorably.

i. Failure to use, completely fill out or provide the required information in the templates referenced above will result in the proposals being considered deficient for this Factor 1 Experience.

c. EVALUATION FACTOR 2 –- SAFETY

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 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’ [CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, CY2019, and

CY2020] 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’ [CY2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020] 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 all levels of subcontractors throughout the execution 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/gov-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.

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, and Technical Approach to Safety; the Government reserves the right to consider other sources of information available to the Government. 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: Evaluate any trends over the last five years. Consider changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends will require the explanation of any extenuating circumstances that caused the higher mishap rates.

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:

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

2. TCR Rate: Evaluate any trends over the last five years. Consider changes that take it from one risk level

(or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends will require the explanation of any extenuating circumstances that caused the higher mishap rates.

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:

Risk TCR 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

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. EVALUATION FACTOR 3 –- PAST PERFORMANCE

(1) The Offeror’s past performance evaluation will be based upon customer satisfaction in the execution of the same recent relevant projects submitted for Factor 1 (Experience), Attachment J.8 and completed projects within the last five (5) years that are similar to the tasks described in Section C. Customer satisfaction will include assessing quality control and timely performance.

(2) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

a. IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. IF THERE IS NOT A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION, the Past

Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the solicitation as Attachment J.11 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 1, Experience of The Firm. AN OFFEROR SHALL NOT SUBMIT A PPQ WHEN A

COMPLETED CPARS IS AVAILABLE.

b. 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 J.11), 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, Vanessa Menor, via email at vaness.menor@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.

c. Also include performance recognition documents received within the last five (5) years, such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

d. 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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using all CAGE/DUNS 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.

e. 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.

(3) Basis of Evaluation: The degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g., PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System (FAPIIS), 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.);

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

A respect for stewardship of Government funds

a. ReservedA subcontractor’s past performance may be submitted for evaluation where the prime contractor provides, in its proposal, evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement that creates legal responsibility on the part of the subcontractor.

b. Projects will be compared against the requirements of Section C for complexity, volume/size, scope, and location. The Government will consider the past performance in a project more relevant if similar to the requirements in this solicitation.

c. The Government reserves the right to consider the experience or past performance of a subcontractor, but if the Government chooses to do so, aA subcontractor’s past performance will be given less consideration than a prime contractor’s past performance. The level of consideration will depend on the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the subcontractor’s commitment to the contract and legal accountability. Prime-subcontractor or JV arrangements with a demonstrated history of working successfully together on prior projects may be considered more favorably than arrangements without such history.

d. An Offeror will not be rated favorably or unfavorably for Factor 3, Past Performance, if the Offeror does not have a record of relevant past performance or if a record of past performance is unavailable. In such a case an Offeror will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

(4) COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION

a. Cost Proposal Submittal Requirement: See Section L, L1.

b. Basis of Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s cost proposal on the basis of:

Completeness- All information required under Section L, L1 of the solicitation.

Price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

Cost reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(c).

Cost realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).

The Government will evaluate all aspects of the cost proposal for completeness, reasonableness and realism. This

Cost Proposal evaluation may include an analysis of each Offeror’s proposed costs to determine whether the proposed cost elements are realistic and are consistent with other cost-related information, i.e. DCAA audits, historical rates, etc., available to the Contracting Officer.

Proposed costs may be adjusted for purposes of evaluation, based on the results of the cost realism evaluation to determine probable cost of performance. Offerors are reminded that for the purpose of evaluation under this solicitation, the direct labor ceiling rates and indirect ceiling rates proposed by the prime and all cost reimbursable team members, as provided in Attachments J.1 and J.4, respectively, hereto, for the base year and each option year shall be proposed under the Cost Model for each respective year, and will be used for cost realism evaluation of the

Cost Model. The Government may reject an offer that reflects a serious lack of cost realism. Furthermore, in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, set forth in Section L hereto, the Government will evaluate offerors compensation plans for professional employees. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. The use of uncompensated overtime, as defined in the FAR 52.237-10 in Section L, will also be considered in the cost realism analysis and risk assessment.

Cost Pool Information and Audit Information - The Government will also review all information provided as required in Section L of this solicitation to determine if the offeror’s accounting and billing systems are adequate for cost-reimbursable type contracts.