Attachment_6_-_EVALUATION_FACTORS.pdf

WR#: C102403

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 1 of 11

ATTACHMENT No. 6 – EVALUATION FACTORS

6. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

6.1. GENERAL

The evaluation for award will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractor in relation to the needs of NIH as set forth in ATTACHMENT No.

2 - PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT.

The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. The Offeror must submit information sufficient to evaluate the proposal based on the detailed criteria listed below.

Using a Best Value Trade-off selection, the Government will award the responsible Offeror whose proposal in the Government’s estimation provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

6.2. IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation factors for this requirement include: Mandatory Qualifications criteria (Go/ No-Go) and Technical Factors including Management Plan, Key Personnel, Experience, and Past Performance and price.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

6.3. MANDATORY QUALIFICATION CRITERIA

The mandatory qualification criterion establishes conditions that must be met at the time of receipt of proposals by the Contracting Officer in order for the Offeror’s proposal to be considered any further for award.

The Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) shall evaluate the Offeror's submissions for compliance with the mandatory qualification criteria. In this evaluation, mandatory qualification shall be evaluated on a "Go / No-Go" basis. "Go / No-Go" is synonymous with "Acceptable / Unacceptable."

Offerors that do not meet the mandatory qualification will be deemed unacceptable for this project and will not be considered further. Listed below are mandatory qualification criteria for evaluation.

6.3.1. Mandatory Qualification Criteria 1: Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures

If submitting under a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture (JV), the Offeror provided evidence that the Mentor-protégé Agreement is approved by the SBA and not discontinued, at time of the proposal submission.

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 2 of 11

6.3.2. Mandatory Qualification Criteria 2: Project Manager

If submitting under a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture or a Small Business Joint Venture, the Offeror provided evidence that:

1. The proposed Project Manager is an employee of the Protégé firm or small business managing venturer at the time the JV submits the offer; or,

2. The proposed Project Manager has signed a Letter of Intent committing to be employed by the Protégé or managing venturer firm if the JV is the successful offeror.

6.4. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Offerors meeting the mandatory qualifications criterion will be deemed acceptable for further evaluation.

The following evaluation criteria are used by the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) when reviewing the Offeror’s qualifications:

FACTOR A: Offeror’s Management Plan

FACTOR B: Offeror's Key Personnel

FACTOR C: Offeror's Experience and Competencies

FACTOR D: Offeror's Past Performance, for Performance Risk

FACTOR A through FACTOR C will be adjectively rated. FACTOR D will be evaluated for performance risk and adjectively rated as well.

Factor A is most important; Factors B, C and D are equally important and individually less important than Factor A. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

[Note: The distinction between past experience and past performance is past experience pertains to the types of work completed by a Contractor that are comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of scope and complexity. Past performance relates to how well a contractor has performed.]

6.4.1. ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION FOR FACTOR D - PERFORMANCE

RISK

The Past Performance will be evaluated for performance risk and an adjectival rating assigned. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance.

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 3 of 11

The adjectival ratings and corresponding descriptions to be used for assessing the past performance are as follows:

Adj. Rating Adjectival Description

Excellent / Very Low

Performance Risk

The past performance and the customer references are excellent.

The Offeror’s performance clearly exceeded contractual requirements.

Offeror provided high quality workmanship and high-level technical experience.

The Offeror met all or surpassed interim milestones, completing contract requirements on time.

Good / Low Performance

Risk

The past performance and the customer references are good.

The Offeror’s performance clearly met contractual requirements.

Offeror provided good quality workmanship and high-level technical experience.

The Offeror met most interim milestones, completing contract requirements on time.

Adequate / Moderate

Performance Risk

The past performance and the customer references are satisfactory.

The Offeror’s performance met contractual requirements.

Offeror provided good quality workmanship and good technical experience.

The Offeror met some interim milestones, completing contract requirements on time.

Marginal / High

Performance Risk

The past performance and the customer references are marginal.

The Offeror’s performance did not meet all contractual requirements.

Offeror provided average quality workmanship and average-level technical experience.

The Offeror met some interim milestones, completing contract requirements on time.

Poor / Very High

Performance Risk

The past performance and the customer references are poor.

The Offeror’s performance did not meet contractual requirements.

Offeror provided below average quality workmanship and below- average-level technical experience.

The Offeror did not meet interim milestones, did not complete contract requirements on time.

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 4 of 11

Adj. Rating Adjectival Description

Unknown Performance

Risk

No Rating / Neutral Rating.

No relevant past performance available for evaluation of the Offeror or entity or proposed employees of the Offeror.

The Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance.

6.4.2. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS FOR EVALUATION FACTORS A THROUGH C

Evaluation Factors A through C shall be adjectively rated as Outstanding, Excellent, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. The Evaluator shall read and assess the proposals and assign and support an adjectival rating for each factor.

The adjectival ratings and corresponding descriptions to be used for assessing the Evaluation Factors A through C criteria are defined as follows:

Adj. Rating Adjectival Description

Outstanding (O)

Significantly exceeds most or all solicitation requirements for this factor.

Response exceeds an “Excellent” rating. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is extremely low.

The proposal demonstrates a level of effort that exceeds the evaluation requirements and that this effort produces results which proves to be substantially beneficial to the project.

The proposal contains no weakness. The Offeror has convincingly demonstrated that the evaluation requirements have been analyzed, evaluated, and should result in an outstanding, effective, efficient, and economical performance.

Excellent (E)

Fully meets all minimum requirements and exceed many of the solicitation requirements for this factor, OR, exceeds a small number of the minimum requirements but to a significant degree or in a valuable way for this factor.

Response exceeds an “Acceptable” rating. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very low.

The proposal demonstrates a level of effort that fully meets the evaluation's requirements and that this effort has produced, or could produce, results which should prove to be substantially beneficial to the project.

The proposal may have minor weaknesses that are correctable but no deficiencies.

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 5 of 11

Adj. Rating Adjectival Description

Acceptable (A)

Fully meets all minimum requirements for this factor. Areas where the proposal exceeds the minimum solicitation requirements, if any, are of little or no value to the Government.

The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is low.

The proposal meets the requirements. The proposal may contain weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses that are correctable but no deficiencies.

Marginal (M)

Does not meet all solicitation minimum requirements for this factor.

The proposal indicates a superficial or vague understanding of the program goals and the methods, resources, schedules and/or other aspects essential to contract performance.

The response is less than “Acceptable”. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate.

The proposal does not meet all of the requirements.

The proposal contains weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses that demonstrate deficiencies in one or more areas.

Unacceptable (U)

The proposal has many or significant deficiencies and/or substantial omissions for the factor, AND/OR, the proposal demonstrates a lack of understanding of the program goals, methods, resources, schedules and/or other aspects essential to contract performance.

The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

The proposal fails to meet a minimum requirement or contains a major deficiency or major deficiencies.

The proposal is incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, or so incorrect as to be unacceptable.

The evaluator feels that the deficiency or deficiencies is/are uncorrectable without a major revision of the proposal.

6.5. EVALUATION FACTORS A – D

The Evaluation Factors A – C will be evaluated based upon the written responses by the Offeror; Evaluation Factor D will be evaluated based on information obtained from the Past Performance Questionnaires, other current and relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government.

6.5.1. FACTOR A: Offeror's Management Plan

The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a complete and reasonable plan to successfully accomplish the objectives of the contract. This factor considers the Offeror’s overall approach for:

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 6 of 11

1. Assuring quality deliverables – complete reports, minutes and other work-related documentation

2. Meeting performance schedules

3. Assuring adequate, qualified workforce capacity is maintained over the life of the contract to ensure the successful execution of multiple, concurrent inspections.

6.5.1.1. Basis of Evaluation

The basis of evaluation for Factor A shall consider the following elements, such as:

1. Performance Work Statement (PWS):

The Offeror’s PWS demonstrates a clear understanding of the services required to successfully meet the objectives of the contract.

2. Quality Control (QC) Plan:

The Offeror’s QC Plan demonstrates a reasonable, discerning approach such as:

a) Assuring all deliverables are prepared and submitted within an acceptable level of completeness;

b) Assuring that all deliverables are timely; the plan includes efficient and reasonable approach for maintaining schedules / turn-around times.

3. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) The Offeror’s proposed QASP provides reasonable, objective quality assurance performance standards and surveillance procedures, which the Government can use to measure Contractor performance under the contract such as how the performance standards will be applied, the frequency of surveillance, and the minimum acceptable defect rate(s).

4. Resource Management Plan The Offeror’s Resource Management plan demonstrates a sound approach for determining adequate staffing levels and assuring sufficient capacity of qualified resources to the project over the life of the contract for the uninterrupted performance of all services. The plan’s proposed organization structure clearly defines roles and reporting relationships.

6.5.2. FACTOR B: Key Personnel

This factor considers the extent of the Offeror’s Key Personnel’s project experience, education, training and qualifications to perform the designated role proposed for the work and the proposed team’s demonstrated experience of working together to provide similar services, contributing to the success of the project.

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 7 of 11

6.5.2.1. Basis of Evaluation

The basis of evaluation for Factor B shall consider the following:

1. Resumes of the following proposed Key Personnel:

• Project Manager

• QA Inspectors

• Mechanical

• Electrical

• General (Architectural/Structural/Civil)

a) At a minimum, Key Personnel resumes shall include:

• One (1) infrastructure and one (1) bio-medical laboratory construction project as defined in SECTION L herein.

b) Key Personnel resumes shall demonstrate qualifications such as:

• Education, certification and /or training as prescribed in SECTION L herein;

• Years of experience in their role, as prescribed in SECTION L herein;

• Experience on projects similar in dollar range, type and complexity to NIH projects, inclusive of the major trades (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural and architectural) as prescribed in SECTION L herein;

• Experience in the inspection of materials, workmanship, construction and installations in their respective discipline / trade (i.e. Mechanical, Electrical, Architectural, etc.)

• Knowledgeable of construction practices and workmanship, including experience in proper uses of construction materials and installation methods;

• OSHA 10-hour Construction Industry Outreach, OSHA 10- Hour General Industry Outreach, OSHA 510 Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Construction or OSHA 511 Occupational Safety and Health Standards for General Industry training.

[Note – The minimum safety criteria is OSHA-10 hour. QA Inspection personnel holding higher safety credentials in excess of the OSHA 10-hour will be given higher consideration / preference. Higher credentials include OSHA 30-hour, OSHA 510/511, or OSHA 500/501 certification, Occupational Health and Safety Technician (OHST) certification/Construction Health and Safety Technician (CHST) certification, Associated Safety Professional (ASP), Graduate Safety

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 8 of 11

Professional (GSP), Certified Safety Professional (CSP), and/or Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH).]

[Note - Although not mandatory, Offeror’s proposing Key Personnel with current US Army Corps of Engineers or NAVFAC Construction Quality Management Certification will receive higher consideration.]

2. Experience of Key Personnel Working Together, such as:

Evidence that the proposed Key Personnel have worked together in the past contributing to the success of a project.

[Note - Offeror’s demonstrating that proposed Key Personnel worked together on some or all the SIMILAR projects submitted in response to Factor C – Experience and Core Competencies may receive higher consideration.]

6.5.3. FACTOR C - Experience and Core Competencies

The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to enable the Government to determine if the Offeror's experience and core competencies are considered relevant to NIH’s requirement for Inspection and QA Support services.

This factor considers the extent of the Offeror’s past experience performing Inspections and QA Support services on projects that meet the definition of SIMILAR PROJECT, for type, size and complexity, as described in ATTACHMENT No. 3 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS herein, and the Offeror’s primary business activity as it relates conducting Quality Assurance Inspections.

6.5.3.1. Basis of Evaluation

The basis of evaluation for Factor C shall consider the following:

1. Experience in SIMILAR Projects:

a) The Offeror submitted no less than three (3) and no more than six

SIMILAR Projects, completed within the last seven (7) years.

[Note - Offerors submitting more than three (3) similar projects may / may not necessarily be rated more favorably than Offerors submitting the minimum three (3) similar projects. The submitted Similar Project’s relevance to the NIH requirement is more important that the quantity of projects submitted.]

b) At a minimum, Offeror’s SIMILAR projects included one infrastructure and one bio-medical laboratory construction project, as defined in SECTION L herein.

[Note - Offerors may be given higher consideration if, in addition to the infrastructure and bio-medical laboratory projects, another SIMILAR

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 9 of 11 project includes a clinical, patient care, general and/or specialized hospital space construction project, as defined in SECTION L herein.]

c) The Offeror’s SIMILAR projects demonstrate experience such as:

• Performing inspections of construction including, but not limited to, Quality Assurance, Quality Control, Safety, & Punchlist, 3rd Party testing observations and/or Stored Item inspections.

• Performing QA inspections involving various construction trades – i.e. Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Structural, and/or Site.

• Performing QA inspections under special working conditions and/or restrictions.

• Preparing reports and meeting minutes including daily inspection reports, notices of non-conformance & safety violations, and other project related documentation.

• Verifying record documents and as-builts.

• Evaluating construction contractor pay applications.

• Supporting commissioning, scheduling, and shutdown activities.

[Note – Although not mandatory, Offeror’s demonstrating experience conducting concurrent inspections on multiple construction projects under one contract may receive higher consideration.]

2. Core Competencies:

NIH’s requirement demands expertise and knowledge in construction practices, means & methods in order to conduct meaningful and thorough QA inspections.

To this end, the Government shall consider the Offeror’s primary business activity to determine if the nature of the firm’s services / expertise focus primarily on construction management / inspection services or whether these services are incidental / ancillary to the firm’s core services and if the Offeror has sufficient capacity (i.e. number of qualified construction inspection staff) available to perform the work.

[Note - Offeror’s that provide construction quality management as their primary business may receive higher consideration.]

6.5.4. FACTOR D – Offeror's Past Performance

6.5.4.1. Basis of Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance based on information obtained from the Past Performance Questionnaires, other current and relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 10 of 11 the Government, and any information supplied by the Offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken:

The Government will assess the relative risks associated with each Offeror.

Performance risks are those associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the acquisition requirements as indicated by that Offeror's record of past performance. The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror's performance. The lack of a past performance record may result in an unknown performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage nor disadvantage of the Offeror.

6.6. DISCUSSIONS / CLARIFICATIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

6.7. PRICE EVALUATION

The Contracting Officer will perform a complete analysis of the price proposals submitted by all Offerors.

The objective of the price analysis is to ensure that the final agreed-to-price is fair and reasonable for the work. In performing the price analysis, the Contracting Officer may use, singly or in combination with others, the analytical techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, to ensure that the final price is fair and reasonable.

The Contracting Officer may request the advice and assistance of other experts in performing the price realism analysis.

The Price Evaluation analysis will assess/include:

1. The Offeror‘s pricing/cost information to include burdened labor, material, and subcontractor costs, overheads, and profit.

2. A comparison of the Offeror’s evaluated price with the Government’s estimate and available historical data.

3. The Offeror’s complete financial statements for the past two years.

6.8. AWARD CRITERIA

Rev: 06/01/17 Page 11 of 11

The Government's objective is to select the proposal that offers the greatest value to the Government. This method is referred to as "Best Value Trade-Off" procurement, which will permit the Government to confirm the Offeror's understanding of the requirements and award to the Offeror whose offer presents the greatest overall value to the Government, cost and other factors considered.

The Government may choose to pay a higher price to make an award to an Offeror whose reputation for past performance and management plan give the Government greater confidence in that Offeror's capability to effectively perform.

The tradeoff between technical factors and price will reflect comparisons of the relative merits of each offer. This is not a matter of simply selecting the technically acceptable offer that proposes the lowest price, nor is it a matter of selecting the most technically qualified offer, regardless of price. In the event that the most technically qualified offer is not the lowest priced offer, the Contracting Officer will judge whether the difference in technical factors is worth the difference in price. The Contracting Officer will make an informed, fair, and well-reasoned business decision, but will not attempt to achieve mathematical precision in his/her judgments or to assign dollar values to technical factors.

6.9. GOVERNMENT DISCRETION

The Government may reject any or all offers, and waive minor informalities and/or minor irregularities in offers received.

6.10. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

It is anticipated that any contract(s) awarded from this solicitation will contain option provision(s) and period(s). In accordance with FAR Clause 52.212-2, Options, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of ATTACHMENT No. 6 – EVALUATION FACTORS)