REDACTED_Source_Select_State.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

DECONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES, CENTRAL

INSTRUMENTATION FACILITY (CIF) GROUP BLDGS AND HEADQUARTERS

BLDG, KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLORIDA

SOLICITATION NUMBER: NNK16577535R

1. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION:

A. This acquisition is for demolition and abatement services for the Deconstruction of Facilities and Structures, Central Instrumentation Facility (CIF) Group Bldgs. and NASA Headquarters (HQ) Bldg. M6-0399 at Kennedy Space Center, FL. (The solicitation included an option item for the awardee to assume sole control over the Kennedy Space Center Diverted Aggregate Reclamation and Collection Yard (DARCY) site located at the Schwartz Road Landfill during the performance of the contract. This option is not being awarded as the work will be performed by others.)

B. A synopsis of this procurement was posted to FEDBIZOPS on March 9, 2016. The solicitation was posted on May 27, 2016. Eight (8) amendments were issued:

Amendment 0001: 4/22/2016 - Updated site visit date Amendment 0002: 5/03/2016 - Made changes to RFP section L Amendment 0003: 5/05/2016 - Made changes to the site visit meeting location Amendment 0004: 5/10/2016 - Posted site visit attendance log; provided Pre

Proposal Inquiry (PPI) Log Amendment 0005: 5/17/2016 - Extended the proposal due date to June 6, 2016 Amendment 0006: 5/19/2016 - Made changes to the RFP to include changes to sections L and M Amendment 0007: 5/24/2016 - Made technical changes to RFP; changed period of performance; incorporated updated PPI Log.

Amendment 0008: 5/27/2016 - Changed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) due date; incorporated final PPI log.

Past Performance Questionnaires and the proposals were received no later than June 6, 2016.

C. Seven (7) offers were received from the following 8(a) contractors:

A

In accordance with FAR 9.104-6 and FAR 9.404, internet inquiries in the System for Awards Management (SAMS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPISS) were performed. All offerors were found to be active and in good standing in the SAMS database and not listed for active or inactive exclusions.

No negative remarks were found in FAPIIS. The offerors’ price proposals included fully executed SF 1442s*; acknowledgement of all eight amendments; properly executed bid bonds; and completion of Section K representations and certifications as required per the solicitation.

*Note: One discrepancy was noted where an offeror inserted their pricing in Block 21 (the award section to be completed by the Government) of the SF 1442 versus block 17 (the proposal section to be completed by the offeror). Blocks 21 and 17 cite the same CLIN structure therefore this error was regarded as a minor irregularity and did not affect the evaluation of proposals.

D. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) consisted of

. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is .

2. EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

A. Introduction:

This is a single award acquisition with award being made to the offeror deemed to be responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal offers the lowest price and is technically acceptable. The Government evaluated proposals in accordance with the solicitation and will award a contract without discussions.

B. Evaluation Factors

This acquisition is being procured under a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Evaluation and selection for contract award is based on three factors: (i) Price (ii) Technical Experience and (iii) Past Performance.

C. Evaluation of Price Proposals

Seven proposals were received by the Government. Prices proposed by the offerors were checked for minor errors and apparent mistakes. (See Note in paragraph 1.C. above)

Per Section M.1(c) of the solicitation, the prices proposed for the base bid were evaluated for fairness and reasonableness by comparison against the Government Estimate and prices submitted by other offerors. The solicitation stated that, “Prices determined to be unreasonably high or unrealistically low when compared to the Government estimate and/or prices submitted by other offerors will be considered unreasonable or unrealistic and not be considered for award.”

As part of the price evaluation process, the Government created a spreadsheet ranking the base bid prices proposed by all offerors from lowest to highest. (The offerors’ names were removed and replaced with alphabetical letters A through G with A being the lowest priced offeror and G being the highest priced offeror.) Six of the seven offerors’ proposed prices were % below to % above the Government estimate and determined to be fair and reasonable when compared to the Government Estimate. Offeror G’s proposed price was % higher than the Government estimate and was determined to be unreasonable when compared to the Government estimate.

The Government then calculated the average price of all of the offerors’ proposed prices with the exception of Offeror G’s price which was already determined to be unreasonable. Offeror A’s proposed price was within % of the next lowest proposed price and within % of the average price of the six remaining offerors and determined to be fair and reasonable.

Offeror A was determined to be the offeror with the lowest fair and reasonable price and their non-price proposal was forwarded for evaluation.

D. Evaluation of Non-Price Factors

The technical (non-price) proposal of the offeror with the lowest evaluated price was given to the technical evaluators for assessment. The SSET performed the evaluation in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

I. Factor 1 – Technical Experience

The Government first evaluated the lowest price offeror’s (Offeror A) technical experience.

Offeror A’s Technical Experience Summary included the following three (3) projects:

Project 1: Deconstruct Facilities & Structures, Various Locations, NASA, KSC & CCAFS; 3/3/15 – 6/30/16; Value to date: $1,762,791.

Offeror A is the prime contractor.

Project 2: Close Demolish Various Facilities, NASA, KSC & CCAFS; 03/2014 – 10/2015. Offeror A’s proposed major subcontractor, , was the abatement/interior demolition partner/contractor on this demolition project awarded to V&R/SSBI Joint Venture. The value of the demolition contract was $6,283,462. The value of the work performed by was $2,733,462

Project 3: Close Demolish Various Facilities, NASA, KSC & CCAFS; 09/2010 – 12/2010. Offeror A’s proposed major subcontractor, , was the abatement subcontractor on this $1,288,460 demolition project.

The Government evaluated Offeror A’s technical experience against the following standards listed in Section M.1(b)(1) of the solicitation. Offerors must meet all of the standards to receive an “Acceptable” rating on this factor:

(1) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must be in progress with at least 50% of the construction work completed or have been successfully completed within seven years of the date of issuance of this solicitation.

(2) Two of the three projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have been individually valued at or over $1,000,000. One of the three projects must have been managed or self-performed by the prime contractor.

(3) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary shall have involved demolition of facilities/structures and site preparation.

(4) The contracts/projects listed in the Technical experience summary shall collectively demonstrate experience in demolition of multiple and varied types of buildings and structures (specifically including multi-level buildings), concrete breaking and cutting for demolition, recycling, grading construction sites, environmental hazards abatement (to include friable asbestos), excavating, earthmoving, land clearing, and working at heights.

(5) The demolished square feet of all contract/projects shall collectively total a minimum of 50,000 square feet.

(6) At least one of the contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved working contiguous or adjacent to functional areas with personnel working in and trafficking through them.

The evaluation of Offeror’s A Technical Experience Summary is as follows:

(1) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary were 90% or more complete within seven years of the date of issuance of this solicitation.

(2) Project 1 is valued at $1,762,791 and is being managed and self-performed by Offeror A. Project 2 was valued at $6,283,462 and Offeror A’s proposed major subcontractor’s effort was $2,733,462.

(3) All contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary involved the demolition of facilities/structures and site preparation.

(4) The contracts/projects listed in the Technical experience summary collectively demonstrated experience in demolition as follows: Project 1 included demolition of multiple and varied types of buildings and structures, including a multi-level building; concrete breaking and cutting for demolition;

recycling; grading construction sites; environmental hazards abatement (to include friable asbestos); excavating, earthmoving, land clearing, and working at heights. Projects 2 and 3 included environmental hazards abatement in multiple and various facilities.

(5) The demolished square feet of Project 1 totaled a minimum of 50,000 square feet. The abatement activities in Project 2 involved over 300,000 square feet.

(6) Project 1 involved work contiguous or adjacent to functional areas with personnel working in and trafficking through them.

Offeror A met all of the technical requirements of the solicitation and, therefore, received an acceptable rating for Factor 1 – Technical Experience.

II. Factor 2 - Past Performance

The completed past performance questionnaires submitted by Offeror A’s Contracting Officers or customer contact equivalents identified in the Technical Experience Summary were evaluated. (This assessment of past performance information is separate from the contractor responsibility determination required under FAR Subpart 9.1.) The Government evaluated Offeror A’s past performance against the following criteria listed in Section M.1(b)(2) of the solicitation:

(1) Providing effective project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to successfully perform, provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner.

(2) Providing immediate and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems.

(3) Providing quality engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation.

(4) Providing project completion within ten percent (10%) of original contract cost and schedule (unless customer required changes caused the cost or schedule deviation).

(5) The Contractor’s ability to safely and successfully implement demolition, concrete breaking and cutting ,deconstruction of multilevel buildings, and/or environmental abatement activities including such activities in areas adjacent or contiguous to those remaining operational during the construction process.

(6) Maintaining an acceptable Safety Program:

1. Maintaining acceptable Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART), Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR), OSHA 300 Log and Experience Modification Rating (EMR) rates for the previous three years.

2. Maintaining a safety and health program with visible management control and involvement

3. Maintaining a safety program ensuring subcontractors’ safety performances was consistent with the prime contractor’s safety program

4. Ability to analyze worksite hazards prior to the start of work to ensure that all hazards were abated

5. Maintaining a safety program with emergency procedures for securing dangerous conditions and protecting personnel during contract performance

6. Ability to understand and comply with safety requirements

7. Maintaining a safety program that ensured the customer’s critical resources were adequately protected

8. Ability to resolve safety discrepancies in a timely and effective manner

9. Ability to report, investigate, and take corrective actions on safety accidents/incidents in a timely and effective manner

(7) Providing prompt payment of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies performed/delivered under the contract.

(8) Complying with Service Contract Labor Standards and other labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

Past Performance Confidence Ratings:

Offeror A’s relevant experience and past performance was reviewed and an assessment made that reflects the Government’s judgment of the probability of Offeror A successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on Offeror A’s demonstrated performance. Past performance was evaluated using the following levels of confidence ratings:

Very High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards.

Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

Per the solicitation, to receive an “Acceptable” rating for past performance, the offeror must receive an overall Past Performance Confidence Rating of Moderate or higher.

The Government received two completed NASA/KSC questionnaires and one questionnaire completed over the telephone for Offeror A as follows:

Project 1: NNK14CA56C Deconstruct Facilities and Structures, Various Locations, KSC - Offeror A provided the first page of the PPQ as required by the RFP. A completed PPQ was provided by the customer to the contract specialist.

All questions were answered. Nine questions received Exceptional ratings and four questions were rated Very Good. The completed PPQ stated that the reviewer would select Offeror A again.

Project 2: NNK13CA90C Close Demolish Close Demolish Various Facilities, KSC - Offeror A provided the first page of the PPQ as required by the RFP. A completed PPQ was provided by the customer to the contract specialist. All questions were answered. Three questions received Exceptional ratings and the remaining ten received Very Good ratings. The reviewer selected that they would utilize Offeror A again and provided the following note: “The contract was completed 1 year ahead of schedule.”

Project 3: NNK08280143E Close Demolish Various Facilities - Offeror A provided the first page of the PPQ as required by the RFP. A completed PPQ was not provided by the customer to the contract specialist. A call was placed to the point of contact on the PPQ and the PPQ questions were asked over the phone.

The reviewer gave Offeror A’s major subcontractor twelve Very Good ratings and one N/A for the question involving drawings and as-builts. The reviewer stated that they would utilize Offeror A’s major subcontractor again.

The results of Offeror A’s past performance evaluations are provided as follows:

(1) Compliant with providing effective project management, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, and financial resources to successfully perform, provide contract deliverables and complete work in a safe and timely manner.

(2) Compliant with providing immediate and effective contractor management attention at the job site for resolution of contract problems.

(3) Compliant with providing quality engineering shop drawings and accurate and complete as-built documentation.

(4) Compliant with providing project completion within ten percent (10%) of original contract cost and schedule (unless customer required changes caused the cost or schedule deviation).

(5) Compliant and able to safely and successfully implement demolition, concrete breaking and cutting ,deconstruction of multilevel buildings, and/or environmental abatement activities including such activities in areas adjacent or contiguous to those remaining operational during the construction process.

(6) Maintaining an acceptable Safety Program:

a. Compliant with maintaining acceptable DART, TCIR, OSHA 300 Logs and EMR rates for the previous three years. Examination of Offeror A’s OSHA 300 and 300A logs for years 2013 to 2015 indicate Offeror A’s DART, TCIR, and EMR rates were better than industry averages.

b. Compliant with maintaining a safety and health program with visible management control and involvement.

c. Compliant with maintaining a safety program ensuring subcontractors’ safety performances was consistent with the prime contractor’s safety program.

d. Compliant with analyzing worksite hazards prior to the start of work to ensure that all hazards were abated.

e. Compliant with maintaining a safety program with emergency procedures for securing dangerous conditions and protecting personnel during contract performance.

f. Compliant with understanding and complying with safety requirements.

g. Compliant with maintaining a safety program that ensured the customer’s critical resources were adequately protected.

h. Compliant with resolving safety discrepancies in a timely and effective manner.

i. Compliant with reporting, investigating, and taking corrective actions on safety accidents/incidents in a timely and effective manner.

(7) Compliant with providing prompt payment of employees, subcontractors, and suppliers for services and supplies performed/delivered under the contract.

(8) Compliant with Service Contract Act and other labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

(9) Complying with contract subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns was not evaluated as Offeror A is a small business.

Offeror A’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition, it demonstrates effective performance; and is fully responsive to contract requirements.

Based on the above, Offeror A received an overall past performance confidence rating of “High Level of Confidence” and per Section M of the solicitation Offeror A receives an “Acceptable” rating for past performance.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Offeror A, Maverick Constructors Inc.’s prices were evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be fair and reasonable. Maverick Constructors Inc.’s Technical Experience and Past Performance were evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be “Acceptable”. Based on the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation the Government has determined the proposal submitted by Maverick Constructors Inc provides the lowest price and is technically acceptable to satisfy Kennedy Space Center’s requirement for Deconstruction of Facilities and Structures, Central Instrumentation Facility (CIF) Group Bldgs. and Headquarters Bldg., Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Maverick Constructors Inc is awarded the Deconstruction of Facilities and Structures, Central Instrumentation Facility (CIF) Group Bldgs. and Headquarters Bldg. contract for $4,163,931.00 (Base Bid CLINs 0001 and 0002).

Date Contract Specialist

Date Source Selection Authority