PgM PM CM - Draft Technical Evaluation Factors.docx

Technical Evaluation Factors for Award:

NAVFAC Washington PgM-PM-CMa IDIQ

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Relative Order of Importance The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price evaluation factors is that the technical factors (Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4) are equal in importance to each other and, when combined, are equal in importance to Factor 5 - Past Performance. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance factor combined are equal to Price.

FACTOR 1 - MANAGEMENT APPROACH

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a Management Plan detailing:

Organizational Structure & Governance: An organizational chart and narrative detailing the lines of authority between the PgM-PM-CMa team, any joint-venture partners/subconsultants, and the Government.

Capacity & Staffing Strategy: The methodology for recruiting, retaining, and managing the specialized personnel and technical inspectors outlined in the SOW.

Agility & Level of Effort: The approach to rapidly scaling resources to accommodate fluctuations in task order volume across the widespread NAVFAC Washington AOR without degrading service quality.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Management Approach to determine the viability, agility, and efficiency of their organizational structure. The Government will assess the risk associated with the Offeror's ability to provide and maintain a stable, highly qualified workforce. Proposals that present robust, proven methods for retaining Key Personnel and deploying specialized Acceptance Engineers (Elevator, Life Safety, Roofing, etc.) promptly to various installations will be rated more favorably and considered lower risk.

The Government will utilize the DoD Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable) to evaluate this factor.

FACTOR 2 - KEY PERSONNEL

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a resume (maximum 2 pages each) and a signed Letter of Commitment for each of the following Key Personnel positions defined in the Scope of Work:

1. Construction Executive (CEx)

2. Senior Construction Manager

3. Senior Scheduler / Analyst

4. Senior Claims Analyst

5. Senior Program Manager Resumes must clearly demonstrate that the proposed individuals meet or exceed the minimum years of experience, educational degrees, and required certifications (e.g., CCM, PE, RA, NAVFAC/USACE QCM) specified in the SOW Labor Categories table.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the qualifications, experience, and certifications of the proposed Key Personnel. The assessment will focus on the individuals' demonstrated ability to successfully perform their respective roles on projects/programs of similar size, scope, and complexity. Proposals that offer Key Personnel who exceed the minimum requirements (e.g., possessing highly relevant DoD/NAVFAC experience, extensive experience with large-scale IDIQs, or advanced specialized certifications) will be rated more favorably and considered lower risk.

The Government will utilize the DoD Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable) to evaluate this factor.

FACTOR 3 - EXPERIENCE

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a maximum of TEN (10) relevant projects/programs completed or substantially completed (at least 75% complete) within the last SEVEN (7) years.

To ensure the Offeror possesses the comprehensive expertise required for this IDIQ, the submitted projects/programs must be distributed across the three core services as follows:

· Program Management (PgM): Minimum of TWO (2) and Maximum of THREE (3) programs.

· Project Management (PM): Minimum of TWO (2) and Maximum of THREE (3) projects.

· Construction Management (CM): Minimum of THREE (3) and Maximum of FOUR (4) projects.

Note: An Offeror must clearly categorize each submitted project/program into ONLY ONE of the three services above for evaluation purposes. Double-counting a single project/program under multiple services is not permitted.

Definitions and Relevance Criteria:

For the purposes of this evaluation, relevant experience in each service is defined as follows:

1. Program Management (PgM) Experience:

· Definition: Overall integration, governance, and management of the technical, financial, logistical, and administrative aspects of a portfolio of multiple concurrent construction projects to achieve overarching strategic objectives.

· Relevance: Managing a portfolio consisting of multiple concurrent building projects (e.g., base, campus, or regional level) with a cumulative estimated construction value exceeding $50 million.

2. Project Management (PM) Experience:

· Definition: Comprehensive management of budget, scope, schedule, design quality assurance (QA), and procurement phase logistics for an individual, complex construction project prior to and up to construction award.

· Relevance: Individual projects with a construction cost exceeding $5 million, featuring high complexity (e.g., major upgrades to mechanical/electrical/life safety systems, medical centers, secure facilities, or complex base utilities).

3. Construction Management (CM) Experience:

· Definition: Comprehensive post-award oversight, including schedule analysis (e.g., Time Impact Analysis), change control/claims analysis, contractor quality control (CQC) oversight, and Critical Systems Acceptance.

· Relevance: Individual projects with a construction cost exceeding $2.5 million, featuring high complexity as defined above, where the Offeror acted as the Owner's representative or CM.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated depth and breadth of relevant experience across the PgM, PM, and CM services.

1. Mandatory Mix of Services: The Offeror must demonstrate relevant experience in all three defined services. A proposal that demonstrates strong experience in one or two services, but fails to submit relevant, qualifying experience in the third service, presents a high risk of unsuccessful contract performance and will be rated Unsatisfactory.

2. Relevance & Complexity: The Government will evaluate how closely the submitted projects/programs match the magnitude and complexity of the technical scope required in the NAVFAC Washington AOR. Projects/programs demonstrating experience with highly complex facilities (e.g., critical systems, high-security facilities, complex renovations) will be rated more favorably than projects/programs demonstrating experience in facilities of lesser complexity.

3. Rating: The Government will utilize the DoD Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable) to evaluate the strength and risk of the submitted experience. Quantities of projects meeting the minimum distribution requirements are acceptable; there is no inherent advantage to submitting the maximum of 10 projects/programs if the minimum requirements clearly demonstrate outstanding capability.

FACTOR 4 - SAFETY

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

The Offeror shall submit a Safety Narrative and corresponding safety metrics detailing their approach to safeguarding personnel on active construction sites. The submittal must include:

1. Safety Metrics: The Offeror shall submit their Experience Modification Rate (EMR), Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) Rate, and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rate for the three (3) most recently completed calendar years.

Note: If an Offeror does not have an EMR, DART, or TRC rate due to their firm's size or industry classification, they must provide a detailed explanation of why they are exempt and submit any alternative safety incident records they maintain.

Corporate Safety Plan: A narrative describing the Offeror's corporate safety training requirements (e.g., OSHA 10/30 for construction), PPE enforcement, and hazard recognition protocols for their personnel operating on active construction sites.

Incident Protocol: The Offeror's procedures for documenting and reporting safety violations observed on-site to the Government (e.g., the Contracting Officer or COR) without assuming the Construction Contractor's liability for site safety.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's understanding of safety requirements and their proactive approach to mitigating safety risks for their personnel.

1. The Government will evaluate the submitted EMR, DART, and TRC rates to identify any negative trends. Lower rates and a history of zero or minimal incidents will be viewed favorably.

a. Experience Modification Rate (EMR): For the three previous complete calendar years the offeror will submit EMR. If no EMR exists, the offeror may submit an insurance company-provided equivalent rate explaining why not. If an insurance company-provided equivalent rate is provided, it will be treated the same as an EMR. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the EMR and negative trends should be addressed as part of this selection factor. The board will evaluate the EMR to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

b. OSHA Days Away from Work, Restricted Duty, or Job Transfer (DART) and Total Recordable Case (TRC) Rates: For the three previous complete calendar years, the offeror will submit their OSHA DART and TRC, as defined by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If unable to submit OSHA DART and TRC rates, affirmatively state so, and an explanation must be provided. Any extenuating circumstances that affected the OSHA DART and TRC rate data and negative trends should be addressed as part of this element. The board will evaluate the OSHA DART and TRC rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any upward trends and extenuating circumstances that impact rates.

2. The Government will evaluate the robustness of the Corporate Safety Plan. Proposals that demonstrate rigorous training requirements (such as requiring OSHA 30 for all site-visiting staff) and clear reporting protocols that respect the contractual boundaries between the PgM-PM-CMa, the Government, and the primary Construction Contractor will be rated more favorably and considered lower risk.

3. The Government will utilize the DoD Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable) to evaluate this factor.

FACTOR 5 - PAST PERFORMANCE

(i) Solicitation Submittal Requirements:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available, it shall be submitted with the proposal for each project included in Factor 3 for experience. If there is not a completed CPARS evaluation then submit Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment D) for each project/program included in Factor 3. The Offeror should provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) in the proposal. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted under Factor 3 – Experience. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues. Explanations shall not exceed one (1) single-sided page in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

(ii) Basis of Evaluation:

This evaluation will consider how well the Offeror's team performed on relevant projects/programs submitted under Factor 3 and past performance on other project/programs currently documented in known sources. The Government will consider the recency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor's performance. This assessment will result in a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Lack of relevant past performance history will result in a Neutral Confidence rating, though Substantial or Satisfactory Confidence ratings will be considered more favorably in the evaluation.