NNK17CA10C_-_Source_Sel_State.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION STATEMENT

Banana River Channel Maintenance Dredging at Kennedy Space Center, Florida

SOLICITATION NUMBER: NNK16594696R

1. DESCRIPTION OF ACQUISITION:

A. This acquisition is for the Banana River Channel Maintenance Dredging at the Kennedy Space Center, FL. The scope of work to be performed under this project consists of the removal of approximately 200,000 Cubic Yards of shoaled materials within the Banana River Channel.

Excavation can be performed by clamshell hydraulic or other dredging methods and the spoil is to be hydraulically unloaded and pumped to an upland disposal site.

B. A synopsis was published on the Federal Business Opportunities on July 13, 2016. The solicitation was issued on August 2, 2016. One (1) amendment was issued on August 18, 2016.

Past Performance Questionnaires and the proposals were received no later than September 1, 2016, 3PM EST.

C. Three (3) offers were received:

All offerors were checked against the Excluded Parties List System. None of the offerors appeared on the list. The lowest priced offeror was also checked against Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and there were no reports. The bond was verified for the raised seal and a bond checklist performed with no issues. They also acknowledged the amendment. As is discussed below, the low bidder was found non-responsive on the Technical Experience Summary requirement. Therefore, the second lowest bidder was checked against FAPIIS with no reports.

Their bond was verified for the raised seal and a bond checklist performed with no issues. They also acknowledged the amendment.

D. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) consisted of Mick Barth (KSC-NEM10), Eugene Hajdaj (KSC-NEF20), Leo De Cesare (KSC-NEF10), Randall A. Gumke (OP-CS-A), and George Cole (KSC-SAE20). The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is Sherry L. Gasaway.

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 two (2) factors: (i) Price and (ii) Technical Acceptability. Technical Acceptability evaluation will consider both technical experience and past performance as non-price sub-factors.

C. Evaluation of Price Proposals

Prices proposed by the offerors were checked for minor errors and apparent mistakes and none were noted. 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 Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and by comparison against the average or mean of the prices proposed by all of the offerors. The solicitation then provides 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 will not be considered for award”.

Using this criteria, a spreadsheet listing all of the offerors’ proposed prices for the base bid was prepared for the Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET). The identity of the offerors was not revealed on the spreadsheet, but each offeror’s proposal was assigned an alphabetical letter (A through C), and listed in order of the lowest price for the base bid. Offeror A, proposed the lowest price for the base bid. Offeror A’s base bid was found to be fair and reasonable as it was below the IGE and below the average or mean price of all the other proposals.

Since Offeror A’s price was the lowest price, the SSET looked for Offeror A’s Technical Experience Summary so that it could be evaluated. Offeror A did not provide a Technical Experience Summary with their proposal as required in Section L. 10 (a) of the solicitation.

Therefore the Government considers Offeror A non-responsive and their proposal was removed from further evaluation. As a result the Government evaluated the second lowest price offered by Offeror B.

Offeror B’s base bid price was above the IGE and above the average or mean price of all the other proposals. The price submitted by Offeror B is determined to be fair and reasonable when compared to the Government estimate and the other offerors’ prices.

D. Evaluation of Non-Price Factors of Lowest Fair and Reasonable Priced Offeror

The technical (non-price) documentation of Offeror B was then given to the technical evaluators who assessed the offeror’s technical experience and past performance as required by the solicitation. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) performed the evaluation in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

I. Sub-Factor 1 – Technical Experience

Since Offeror A was ruled non-responsive the Government evaluated Offeror B Technical Experience.

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

(1) Honeymoon Island Beach Restoration 134-0147-CP, Dunedin FL. (Completed November 2015 for $4,284,956.04)

(2) Villages of Lakewood Ranch – Lake C Maintenance Dredging (Completed March 2016 for $1,328,460.00)

(3) F2D Clays, Four Corners Mine, Mosaic Fertilizer, Bradley, FL. (Ongoing – Completed more than 50% for $1,228,800.00)

The Government evaluated Offeror B’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 (7) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation (August 2, 2016).

(2) All three projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have been performed by the offeror as a prime contractor or major subcontractor under NAICS code 237990 “Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction”. The term “Major Subcontractor” is defined as any subcontractor whose effort was/is more than 35% of the contract value.

(3) All three contracts/projects listed in the Technical Experience Summary must have involved the dredging of at least 100,000 cubic yards of spoil material.

(4) At least one of the three projects shall demonstrate the ability to hydraulically dispose of spoil material into an upland spoil disposal site and monitor the outflow of decanted water.

(5) At least one of the projects shall demonstrate work in an active manatee area.

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

(1) All three projects submitted met the requirement of being at least 50% completed or successfully completed within seven (7) years of issuance of the solicitation.

(2) All three projects submitted met the requirement of being performed by the offeror as a prime contractor or major subcontractor under NAICS code 237990 “Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction”.

(3) All three projects submitted involve the dredging of at least 100,000 cubic yards of spoil material.

(4) Project 3, F2D Clays, demonstrated the ability to hydraulically dispose of spoil material into an upland spoil disposal site and monitor the outflow of decanted water.

(5) Project 1, Honeymoon Island Beach Restoration, demonstrated work in an active manatee area.

Offeror B met all of the of the technical experience factors identified in the solicitation and is, therefore, assessed as having a Technical Experience rating of “Acceptable”.

II. Sub-Factor 2 - Past Performance

The completed past performance questionnaires submitted by Offeror B’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 B’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 timely 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) Providing safe and successful dredging operations.

(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 Department of Labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

Past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.

“ACCEPTABLE”

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

“UNACCEPTABLE”

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “ACCEPTABLE.”

The Government received three completed NASA/KSC questionnaires for Offeror B. However only one (Villages of Lakewood Ranch) was identified as part of the Technical Experience Summary. The Government contacted the two other companies identified in the Technical Experience Summary. Below is an overview of the evaluations:

Honeymoon Island Beach Restoration – The Government didn’t originally receive an evaluation for this project. However, the Government contacted the project engineer, Brett Moore, P.E., (Humiston & Moore Engineers) who provided an evaluation with all the ratings being Exceptional except for two N/A’s. Mr. Moore also commented that this project was a complex marine construction project that was completed without any issues and they would select them again.

Villages of Lakewood Ranch – All questions were answered. All of the ratings were Exceptional except for one N/A. There were no comments, however, they did indicate that they would select them again.

F2D Clays – The Government didn’t receive an evaluation for this project. The Government did try to contact the lead engineer, Karl Foelsche, (The Mosaic Fertilzer, LLC), however, Mr.

Foelsche did not respond back to the Government’s phone call or email.

The two extra questionnaires the Government received (GypStack Expansion, White Springs, FL and NOAA Oyster Reef Creation Project) also show that Offeror B provided Exceptional work and would utilize them again for future projects.

The results of the 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 timely 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. Customer required changes caused the cost and/or schedule deviations.

(5) Compliant with providing safe and successful dredging operations.

(6) Maintaining an acceptable Safety Program:

1. Compliant with 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. Examination of Offeror A’s OSHA 300 and 300A logs for years 2013 to 2015 indicated the company’s Days Away Restricted or Transferred (DART) and Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) were better than industry average. Offeror B’s Experience Modification Rating (EMR) rates for 2013 – 2015 are considered better than industry average standard / rates.

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

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

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

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

6. Compliant with understanding and complying with safety requirements.

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

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

9. 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 Department of Labor requirements and resolution of reported labor violations/discrepancies.

Based on offeror B’s past performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort and therefore as per Section M of the solicitation Offeror B receives an “Acceptable” rating for past performance.

SOURCE SELECTION DECISION

Offeror B (Florida Dredge and Dock, LLC) price was evaluated in accordance with the solicitation and determined to be fair and reasonable. Florida Dredge and Dock, LLC’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 Florida Dredge and Dock, LLC provides the lowest price and is technically acceptable to satisfy Kennedy Space Center’s requirement for Banana River Channel Maintenance Dredging at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Florida Dredge and Dock, LLC is awarded the Banana River Channel Maintenance Dredging at Kennedy Space Center, Florida contract for $5,945,000.00 (Base Bid $5,935,000.00 and Additive 1 - $10,000.00).

Randall A. Gumke Contracting Officer

Sherry L. Gasaway Source Selection Authority