Section_M_-_Revision_2.pdf

RFP Number : NIHOF2016102

- 98 -

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990)

1. Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of Provision)

2. GENERAL

a. Basis for Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Department of Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR). The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will select the best overall offer based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors identified below. Multiple contracts may be awarded to Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, technical requirements, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and are judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to Offerors who give the National Institutes of Health the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher-priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/ or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a source selection decision, the SSA will make an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award no more than four (4) contract awards as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award less than four contracts if it believes it is in the Government's best interest. The Government intends to award without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence, failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program, or failure to respond to Section L direction and guidance. Moreover, Offerors are cautioned that unbalanced pricing (as defined by FAR 15.404-1(g)) may increase performance risk under this effort. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g)(3), an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. SOURCE SELECTION

a. Evaluation Factors and Their Relative Order of Importance. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are deemed the best value to the Government, based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. Factor 2 is more important that Factor 1. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1: Past Performance

Factor 2: Management Plan

- 99 -

Factor 3: Price

b. Discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions with Offerors in the competitive range, responses during discussions and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

c. Factor Ratings. A single Performance Confidence Assessment will be assigned to Factor 1 (Past Performance). The following table provides the ratings and a description:

TABLE 1: PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror's performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror's performance record, the Government has an expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror's performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror's performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No performance record is identifiable or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Performance confidence represents the Government's assessment of the probability of an Offeror successfully performing the required effort and is derived from an evaluation of the Offeror's present and past work record.

Past Performance will be evaluated as described below.

- 100 -

Factor 2 (Management Plan) will receive a technical rating that reflects the degree to which the Factor exceeds, meets, or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements. Any risks identified will be included in the technical evaluation and will assess the degree to which an Offeror's proposed approach to achieving the Factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The rating for this Factor will utilize a color rating. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror's proposal meets or exceeds (in a way that is beneficial to the Government) the Factor requirements IAW the stated evaluation criteria and solicitation requirements based on the assessed strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal as they relate to this Factor. The narrative evaluation will be used to differentiate offers with the same color ratings.

The following table provides the ratings and a description:

TABLE 2 - RATINGS FOR FACTOR 2

Color Rating Description Blue Exceptional Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. A proposal must have one or more strengths, no weaknesses, no significant weaknesses, and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements. A proposal must have no weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements. A proposal must have no deficiencies and all weaknesses and significant weaknesses identified are correctable.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

A "strength" is a significant aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the Offeror's process.

A "weakness" is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. It requires additional information from the Offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an Evaluation Notice (EN).

A "significant weakness" is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. It requires additional information from the Offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an Evaluation Notice

(EN).

- 101 -

A "deficiency" is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (FAR 15.001).

"Evaluation notices (ENs)" are written exchanges with Offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 4 below.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) represents the evaluation of an Offeror's present and past work record and assesses the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing the required effort. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet the user's needs in regards to quality, timeliness, responsiveness, subcontracts and management, design, and change/cost control.

b. The PCA will be unaffected by any early proposal information received.

c. The PCA will use the consent letter by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner to fully review ALL available past performance information. Failure to submit a letter of consent as requested may result in a determination of no applicable past performance information as described below.

d. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing an Offeror's most recent and relevant performance information, focusing on and targeting performance, which is relevant to the Factors identified below. For the purposes of this solicitation, recent contracts are defined as work or a portion of work performed after 1 January 2012 which contains one or more of the following project characteristics: Major/minor renovation;

New construction; Outside utility work; work inside a central utility plant; work inside a Health/Research facility;

and/or an Occupied facility. The Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) will determine relevancy of an Offeror's present and past performance based on the information submitted by the Offeror, including the performance of joint venture partners and/or other legal partners. For Offerors who are submitting as a joint venture or other teaming arrangement, past performance for the specific joint venture or other teaming arrangement that is being proposed is significantly more important than any other past performance information cited or utilized by the PCAG. Successful projects submitted with overlapping periods of performance are also significantly more important than projects without overlapping periods of performance.

e. The PCAG will consider efforts, or portions of an effort, proposed by an Offeror, joint venture partner, or other legal partner. Relevance is not rated separately but integrated into the PCA. The Government is not bound by an Offeror's opinion of relevancy. Relevancy occurs when requirements for cited efforts (e.g. contracts, task/delivery orders) are similar to this acquisition. Higher relevance combined with demonstrated positive performance favorably impacts an Offeror's PCA.

f. An Offeror will receive an integrated PCA for the Past Performance Factor, in accordance with Table 1 - Performance Confidence Assessments (above). The Government bases its PCA on an Offeror's ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements within schedule, budget, and performance constraints. The following statements define levels of relevancy:

Very Relevant - Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort or complexities this solicitation requires (at least 3 of the following project characteristics: Lab Renovations, Major Mechanical, Major Electrical, Major Plumbing, Any Other Areas of the Statement of Work, Design-Build).

Relevant - Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort or complexities this solicitation requires (at least 2 of the following project characteristics: Lab Renovations, Major Mechanical, Major Electrical, Major Plumbing, Any Other Areas of the Statement of Work, Design-Build).

- 102 -

Somewhat Relevant - Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort or complexities this solicitation requires (at least 1 of the following project characteristics: Lab Renovations, Major Mechanical, Major Electrical, Major Plumbing, Any Other Areas of the Statement of Work, Design-Build).

Not Relevant - Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort or complexities this solicitation requires (none of the following project characteristics: Lab Renovations, Major Mechanical, Major Electrical, Major Plumbing, Any Other Areas of the Statement of Work, Design-Build).

g. The PCAG will review, evaluate, and compare all past/present performance data for each identified project to this proposed effort and determine the level of relevancy. If necessary, the PCAG will confirm performance using sources provided by an Offeror or obtain additional performance data from other sources.

h. An Offeror will receive an unfavorable PCA for: (a) less-than-satisfactory past performance rating on any evaluation factor/sub-factor or (b) any unfavorable comment in the PCAG's narrative assessment of past performance in a competitive range or final briefing to the Source Selection Authority (SSA). An Offeror will have an opportunity to comment on unfavorable past performance assessments which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. For other formal rating systems, like CPARS, an Offeror already has an avenue to submit comments.

i. Very Relevant past performance affects the PCA more than Relevant past performance. Relevant past performance affects the PCA more than Somewhat Relevant past performance.

j. For recorded problems in an Offeror's performance, the PCAG will consider the number and severity. It will also review the corrective actions, not just those planned or promised, for appropriateness and effectiveness.

The PCAG may review other recent contracts or evaluations to determine status of corrective actions.

k. The PCAG may consider the Offeror's past performance in aggregate, including subcontractors, joint ventures, and teaming partners.

l. Each Offeror will receive an integrated PCA from performance data relevant to the other factors. The Performance Confidence Assessment represents an Offeror's overall rating for the Past Performance Factor.

m. The PCAG will obtain data from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and from other source selections to evaluate past performance. The PCAG may also seek information from similar systems in other Government departments and agencies; may use questionnaires tailored to this acquisition; may interview program managers, contracting officers, and additional sources known to the Government, including commercial;

and may contact the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). In conducting this assessment, the PCAG reserves the right to use data provided by an Offeror and data obtained from other sources.

n. The PCAG will review the Offeror's organizational structure and any legal changes thereof within the relevant timeframe to determine the PCA. The PCAG will determine the relevancy of any organizational changes as they relate to individual projects submitted for evaluation. Projects submitted as most relevant and most current that resemble the current organizational structure will be viewed as favorable.

o. An Offeror will receive an Unknown for the PCA if there is no record of relevant past performance or performance data is unavailable.

FACTOR 2 - MANAGEMENT PLAN

a. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a reasonable and realistic schedule for each task order included in the solicitation. Additionally, if the Offeror is awarded the task order, the schedule provided in the proposal will be utilized as the initial schedule for submittal and contract administration purposes.

b. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a reasonable and realistic timeframe associated with the submittals for each task order included in the solicitation (for both when the submittal will be provided by the Offeror as well as when the review is required by the Government). Additionally, if the Offeror is awarded the task order, the contractor will be evaluated on whether the submittals were initially submitted by the date included in the proposal within the past performance evaluation completed for that task order. In the event the

- 103 -proposed date falls on a weekend or Government holiday, the due date for the initial submission will be the next business day for past performance purposes.

c. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound approach to managing a design build project. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound approach for ensuring the Offeror is selecting the best A/E firm for an individual task order. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound approach for managing both the design portion and construction portion of a design-build task order, including how conflicts will be resolved.

d. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound approach to selecting subcontractors (other than the A/E subcontractor) as well as sound rationale for how the Offeror plans to select those subcontractors. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound approach for controlling subcontracts/subcontractors. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound approach for identifying subcontractors that need to be replaced as well as a sound process with regard to how they will be replaced. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound process for evaluating subcontractor performance on MATOC task orders during the period of performance and after the work is completed. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound approach for determining whether a subcontractor will be utilized on future task orders under the MATOC.

e. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound approach for managing company resources, including staffing. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound approach to ensure the Project Manager and Project Superintendent(s) are not overcommitted and have adequate time to perform their duties on each individual task order, particularly in the event that multiple task orders are being done simultaneously. An acceptable response shall demonstrate a sound plan for delegating responsibilities for the Project Manager and the Project Superintendent(s).

f. Offerors shall be evaluated on their proposed Sustainable Acquisition Plan for compliance with FAR 23.1, relevant environmental laws and regulations to acquire supplies and services that promote energy and water efficiency, as well as advancing the use of renewable energy products. Offerors shall also be evaluated on proposed implementation of cost-effective contracting preference programs throughout the life of the contract that promote the use of products and processes in the following areas: Recycled Content, Energy Efficient, Biobased, Environmentally Preferable, Electronic Product Environment Assessment Tool, Water-Efficient, Non- Ozone Depleting Substances, and Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Alternative Fuels.

FACTOR 3 - PRICE

a. The Offeror's price proposal will not be rated or scored, it will be evaluated for its reasonableness and realism.

To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and any other resource available to the Government.

b. The Offeror's Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

c. For this solicitation the Government will evaluate each individual task order proposal to determine if each proposal individually is reasonable and realistic. After each individual task order proposal is evaluated, the total price for each individual task order will be added together to established an overall Total Evaluated Price for the Offeror. This overall Total Evaluated Price will be used for evaluation purposes as the price factor for the Offeror.

In the event that any of the individual task order prices are determined to be unreasonable and/or unrealistic, the Offeror's entire price proposal will be determined unreasonable.

d. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror's proposed prices. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed prices are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflect of a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror's technical proposal. Price realism will consider any risks identified during the evaluation of the proposal and associated costs. When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the

- 104 -anticipated costs of performance and the Offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will evaluate the price factor as unreasonable.

e. Any proposal that is determined to be unreasonable will not result in a contract award.

f. The task orders included in the solicitation will be awarded for the lowest aggregate total while awarding at least one task order to each awardee. In the event there are 4 awardees, each awardee will be awarded one of the task orders included in the solicitation. In the event there are 3 awardees, one awardee will be awarded two task orders included in the solicitation and the other 2 awardees will be awarded one task order each. In the event there is more than one combination that totals the same aggregate total for the Government, the Government will document the combinations and draw lots of the combinations. The Government will award the task orders based on which lot was drawn.