21-R-1801_SECTION M_AMD2.pdf

N62742-21-R-1801

Amendment 0002

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARA

NO. TITLE

M1 COMPETITIVE RANGE

M2 PREFERENCE FOR MAKING MULTIPLE AWARDS

M3 MAGNITUDE OF THE ACQUISITION.

M4 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE PROPOSAL

M5 RESERVED

M6 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

M1 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government intends to evaluate all proposals received and award contracts without discussions with offerors.

Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a 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 price and technical factors.

M2 PREFERENCE FOR MAKING MULTIPLE AWARDS

This solicitation is being advertised as a 100% small business set-aside, source selection procurement requiring both technical and price proposals. This procurement consists of one solicitation with the intent to award multiple

Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contracts. The Government intends to award multiple awards and reserves the right to make a single award if only one proposal offers the best value to the Government.

M3 MAGNITUDE OF THE ACQUISITION

The magnitude of the contract or contracts is $120,000,000 for all contracts over the life of the contract or contracts

OR 102 months, whichever occurs first. The minimum guarantee for each contract awarded is $5,000.

M4 ENFORCEABILITY OF THE 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.

M5 RESERVED (BLANK)

M6 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD

The contract or contracts resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror or Offerors whose offers, conforming to the solicitation, are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering technical merit and price. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced Offerors or other than the highest technically rated Offerors. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. Business judgments and tradeoffs may be used to determine the proposal or proposals 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.

(1) The evaluation factors are as follow:

I. Non-Price Evaluation Factors:

FACTOR 1, EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2, SAFETY

FACTOR 3, PAST PERFORMANCE

II. Price

(2) The relative order of importance of the evaluation factors are as follows: Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance to each other, and, when combined are equal in importance to the past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment Factor 3. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factor combined are significantly more important than price. The importance of price will increase if the Offerors’ non-price proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of overall quality, or if price is so high as to significantly diminish the value of a non-price proposal’s superiority to the Government.

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

a. NOTES applicable to Factor 1, 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 M6,3.b.(2)c and Attachment J-5, Key Personnel Qualifications. Information may be provided on basic IDIQ contracts on

Attachment J-5 for the Program Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and Health and Safety Manager key personnel positions, but not the Project Manager key personnel positions.

B. A relevant project shall also be for an amount of at least $100,000 in dollar value and shall be at least 80% 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 within the five (5) years before 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 experience and past performance is that 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 (1) 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.

(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.

(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. Projects completed by the JV that are relevant may be considered more favorably. If the Joint Venture does not have shared experience, projects may be submitted for any of the Joint

Venture members. Offerors who submit experience for all Joint Venture partners may be considered more favorably.

Offerors are still limited to a total of five (5) projects combined.

(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 - EXPERIENCE

(1) The Offeror will demonstrate its technical experience performing the type, complexity, and quantity of work described in Section C paragraph 1.2. This technical factor will be used to measure the probability of successful accomplishment of the work contemplated under this contract.

(2) Non-Price Proposal Submittal Requirements for Factor 1, Experience:

Offerors shall:

a. Use Attachment J-3 to describe experiences with no more than five (5) recent, relevant projects 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 one (1) page double-sided per project. If more than one (1) page is submitted, the agency will not consider the information on the additional pages.

b. Use Attachment J-4 to describe capability and capacity to deliver on-schedule products similar to the type and complexity of the tasks described in Section C of this solicitation assuming a workload of at least five

(5) recent, relevant projects totaling a minimum of $5 million at multiple locations within the NAVFAC

Pacificsolicitation area of responsibility, as described in Section C subparagraph 1.1, occurring concurrently. The combined submittal for Attachment J-4 shall not exceed three (3) double-sided pages.

c. Use Attachment J-5 to detail experience for each person who will be assigned as Key Personnel to work on this contract. Key Personnel are the Program Manager, Project Managers for each type of work described in Section C of this solicitation (identify three (3) individuals), Quality Assurance Manager, and Health and

Safety Manager. The Offeror shall not submit more than two (2) pages double-sided per person submitted as Key Personnel. Experience that is not related to the work described in Section C of this solicitation should not be included in Attachment J-5. A letter of commitment shall be provided for each proposed Key

Personnel, and shall include the Key Personnel’s role in the contract. Offerors shall not submit Attachment

J-5 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.

d. Use Attachment J-6 to detail the roles of each Key Personnel, the company they work for, and assigned specific tasks that are described Section C of this RFP.

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/or (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 (collectively in project experience, AND collectively in Key Personnel experience) in at least five (5) types of service described in Section C, paragraph 1.2.1 of this solicitation.

b. Minimum Key Personnel Requirements: Key Personnel must meet the education, training, and experience qualifications described in Section C, paragraph 1.3. to be considered for this contract.

c. Letters of commitment shall be submitted for all Key Personnel including subcontractor Key Personnel.

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

e. Offerors who demonstrate experience working in the NAVFAC Pacific area of responsibility may be evaluated more favorably.

d.f. Offerors who demonstrate a substantial amount of concurrent projects containing various remedies and in excess of $5 million in value may be considered more favorably.

e.g. Experience that provides relevant innovative approaches to performance of work described in Section C may be evaluated more favorably. An innovative approach should demonstrate a cost savings greater than

10% of the overall project budget and apply elements of green and sustainable remediation.

f.h. Offerors may be evaluated less favorably if they do not demonstrate experience with the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the work performed as compared to the requirements contemplated under this solicitation and described in Section C.

g.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

(1) Non-Price Proposal Submittal Requirements for Factor 2, Safety:

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 Calendar Years (CY) 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, 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 (1) 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’ [CY2015, CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, and

CY2019] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no DART rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should an increasing 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’ [CY2015, CY2016, CY2017, CY2018, and

CY2019] worth of data (not an overall average). If the Offeror has no TCR rate, for any year, affirmatively state so and explain why. Should an increasing 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.

1. 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.

(2) 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 increasing trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

1. DART Rate: Evaluate any trends over the last five (5) years. Consider changes that take it from one risk level

(or more) to the next up or down. Increasing 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 (5) years. Consider changes that take it from one risk level

(or more) to the next up or down. Increasing 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) and completed or substantially 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) Non-Price Proposal Submittal Requirements for each project submitted for Factor 3, Past Performance:

a. IF A COMPLETED CPARS EVALUATION IS AVAILABLE FOR THE RECENT RELEVANT

PROJECT, 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-7 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. 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-7), 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 vanessa.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. 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) and CPARS 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.

d. 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, CPARS, FAPIIS, 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. A 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 relevant if similar to the requirements in this solicitation.

c. A subcontractor’s past performance will be given less weight than a prime contractor’s past performance.

The level of weight 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 an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating.

e. PRICE PROPOSAL EVALUATION

(1) Price Proposal Submittal Requirements: See Section L2, A.

(2) Basis of Evaluation:

The Offeror’s price proposal shall be in the format prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in Section L. THE GOVERNMENT MAY REJECT ANY OR ALL PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT

CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED HEREIN IF SUCH ACTION IS IN THE

GOVERNMENT’S BEST INTEREST.

The Government will evaluate the following JL Attachments submitted in response to the solicitation.

Attachment JL.1A - Burdened Direct Labor Hourly Ceiling Rates Build-Up Form

Attachment JL.1- Burdened Direct Labor Hourly Ceiling Rates and Other Direct Costs Multiplier(s)

Ceiling(s)/Direct Charges to Labor Base

Attachment JL.2- Proposed Distribution of Work

Attachment JL.3- Price Model Worksheet

Attachment JL.4- Price Model Summary Sheet

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposal on the basis of:

Completeness- All information required under Section L2 of the solicitation.

Price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), including analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the Offeror within their price proposal, under Section II-Price and Related

Information, Tab1-Price Proposal Supporting Information and Tab2- Price Model Information.