Section M.pdf

Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Asbestos Abatement Hill AFB, Utah 15 December 2020

(a) The Government intends to award one indefinite quantity contract resulting from this solicitation to the lowest priced offeror, with acceptable technical, price, and past performance proposals whose offer conforms to the solicitation. The Government may award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions. When the Government receives at least two offers that are found technically acceptable, the Government will then evaluate proposals beginning with the lowest price offeror. The offeror that is technically acceptable and has the lowest price with an acceptable past performance rating, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered forward. A Task Order project will also be awarded with the basic IDIQ contract and a separate and specified bid for that project will need to be turned in. The details of that specific project are found as attachments to this solicitation and will be evaluated in the same manner as the basic IDIQ.

Offerors are required to submit technical, past performance, and price proposals according to the following. The technical capability and past performance evaluation factors will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis only. Price will be evaluated on completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness.

Offerors shall propose on the total solicitation requirement; partial quantities are not acceptable. The following will be used to evaluate the offers:

1. Factor 1 – Technical Evaluation. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposal on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, as stated below:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1.1 Only those proposals determined technically acceptable will be considered for further evaluation unless the Government chooses to enter discussions. Only technically acceptable proposals will be considered for contract award. The following technical sub factors will be evaluated:

1.1.1 Sub factor1 – Proof of Insurance/Bonding Capability

Satisfactory evidence of bonding capability as stated in section L will result in an acceptable rating for this sub factor.

1.1.2 Sub factor 2 - Submission of all requirements in Part 2 of the attached Contractor Qualifications Requirements, to include all licensing, certifications required by UDAQ, NIOSH, and EPA and this solicitation will result in an acceptable rating for this sub factor. Contractor must specifically address all submittal requirements of this section. All documents submitted in accordance with 1.1.2may be verified with the Utah Department of Air Quality at the discretion of the Government.

2.1 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide a List of employees by date of last exams, who are medically qualified to work with asbestos (29 CFR 1926.1101) (Utah DAQ R307-801) and Lead (29 CFR 1926.62). Include examiner’s name, signature, medical qualifications and place of employment. At least 50% of the employees must be current at time of submittal. 100% of employees must show current medical qualification documents at the beginning each abatement job.

2.2 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide the Contractor’s respiratory protection program (29 CFR 1926.1101, 29 CFR 1926.62, EPA Publication560/5-85- 024, Utah DAQR307-801).

2.3 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide their air sampling protocol used to support sampling requirements found in 29 CFR 1926.1101, 29 CFR 1926.62, and Utah DAQ R307-801.

2.4 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide a list of equipment to be used for asbestos/LBP work under this contract. Examples of equipment include negative air machines (with maintenance logs/High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter documentation), scaffolding, decontamination facilities, disposable clothing, air pressure differential measuring devices (with proof of annual calibration), HEPA vacuums, etc. Copy of manufacturers’ certification of HEPA filter for vacuum. (EPA Publication 560/5-85-024).

2.5 To be found acceptable the contract must provide a list of National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved respirators to be used on site by employees. Include NIOSH approval numbers and proof of approval (29 CFR 1926.1101, 29 CFR 1926.62, EPA Publication 560/5-85-024).

2.6 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide qualifications of the Independent

Third Party Industrial Hygienist (IH) who will oversee the project to include certification date, college degrees, years of experience, and any other qualifications to perform this work. It is recommended the IH overseeing the project be an American Board of Industrial Hygiene-Certified Industrial Hygienist of college graduate with at least eight years of work related experience. The third party on site monitor must have current UDAQ Contractor/Supervisor Certification. If more than one IH consultant is used, list those who may oversee the asbestos/LBP work.

2.7 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide a list of employees fit tested for respirator use in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.1101, 29 CFR 1926.62. List these employees by date and respirator. Include proof of employee fit testing and the name and qualifications of the fit tester. At least 50% of the employees must be current (i.e., WITHIN 6 MONTHS) at the time of submittal. 100% of employees must show current fit test documents at the beginning of each abatement job.

2.8 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide experience of asbestos work –

Proof of at least one year minimum work experience in Utah as a UDAQ certified asbestos abatement company. Provide a current list of employees who have received training in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.1101 and EPA Publication 560/5- 85-024. Proof of UDAQ certification is required for all asbestos work categories.

Include proof of training (i.e. written certification of completion) from a nationally recognized EPA asbestos training course for each employee. At least 100% of the employees must be currently certified at the time of submittal. All workers, contractor/supervisors, project designers must show current UDAQ certification documents before the beginning of each abatement job.

2.9 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide experience of lead work – Proof of at least one year minimum work experience in Utah as a UDAQ certified lead abatement company. Provide proof of employee training (i.e., written certification of completion) from an EPA approved course of each employee. All workers, contractor/supervisors must show current UDAQ certification documents before the beginning of each abatement job.

2.10 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide copies of air monitoring data taken during and after abatement from previous projects completed by contract (not to exceed five projects). (29 CFR 1926.1101, EPA Publication560/5-85-024).

2.11 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide a list of prior asbestos abatement contracts performed during the past two years. Include the names, addresses, telephone numbers and dates the projects were performed. (EPA Publication 560/5-85-024).

2.12 To be found acceptable the contractor must provide additional information to adequately show compliance with applicable laws and regulations in the following areas:

A. Medical certification B. NIOSH Analytical Lab Certification (independent lab) C. Disposal of waste D. Department of Transportation transport of asbestos waste E. Cleanup procedures

2.13 To be found acceptable the contractor must have a score greater than zero and provide a list of any asbestos/LBP abatement projects including those of any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or sole proprietorship of which any director, officer, or agent of the contractor now making application was a director officer, partner, or agent, to have been prematurely terminated. Include the circumstances surrounding the termination. (EPA Publication 560/5-85-024). This requirement shall be assigned a starting value of 10 points with points removed based on circumstances surrounding incidence of premature contract termination. A final score of “0” in this section will result in an unacceptable technical rating.

Termination due to no fault of the contractor = 0 point deduction Termination due to Partial contractor fault = 2 point deduction Termination due to 100% contractor fault = 4 point deduction

2.14 To be found acceptable the contractor must have a score greater than zero and provide a list of any contractual penalties within the past two years including those of any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or sole proprietorship of which any director, officer, or agent of the contractor now making application was a direct, officer, partner, or agent, whom the contractor has paid for breach or noncompliance with contract specifications. (EPA Publication 560/5- 024). This requirement shall be assigned a starting value of 5 points with points removed based on number of contractual penalties for breach or non-compliance with contract specifications. A final score of “0” in this section will result in an unacceptable technical rating.

Each instance of contractual penalty = 2 point deduction

2.15 To be found acceptable the contractor must have a score greater than zero and provide a list any enforcement action levied by any Federal, State or local government agencies against the contractor for violations related to asbestos/LBP within the past two years including those of any corporation, Limited Liability

Company, partnership, or sole proprietorship of which any director, officer, or agent of the contractor now making application was a director, officer, partner, or agent. The citations will be identified by contractor including the name of location of the project, the date(s) and how the allegations were resolved. (EPA Publication 560/5-024). This requirement shall be assigned a starting value of 10 points with points removed based on type of enforcement action and how resolved. A final score of “0” in this section will result in an unacceptable technical rating.

Compliance advisory issued, resolved with no escalation no fine = 0 point deduction Compliance advisory issued, not resolved and escalated to Notice of Violation (NOV) no fine = 2 point deduction Notice of Violation (NOV) issued, fine issued = 4 point deduction

2.16 To be found acceptable the contractor must have a score greater than zero and provide a description of all legal proceedings, lawsuits, or claims which have been filed or levied against the contractor or any of his past or present employees for asbestos/LBP related activities within the past two years including those of any corporation limited liability company, partnership, or sole proprietorship of which any director, officer, or agent of the contract now making application was a director, officer, partner, or agent. (EPA Publication 560/5-85-024). This requirement shall be assigned a starting value of 10 points with points removed based on a determination of the severity and fault associated with the legal proceedings. A final score of “0” in this section will result in an unacceptable technical rating.

Contractor found not at fault = 0 point deduction Contractor partially at fault = 2 point deduction Contractor at fault = 4 point deduction

**ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED IS SUJBECT TO CONFIRMATION BY GOVERNMENT.

ANY INFORMATION FOUND TO BE FALSE, WILL BE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE

DISQUALIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR.

**THESE ARE PREQUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS REQUIREMENT AND MUST BE SUBMITTED

WITH YOUR PROPOSAL. ANY PROPOSAL RECEIVED WITHOUT THESE QUALIFICATIONS

WILL BE CONSIDERED INELIGIBLE FOR THIS AWARD. **

2 FACTOR 2 – PRICE

a. Only price proposals submitted by offerors whose technical proposals are determined acceptable will be considered for evaluation. The offer will be evaluated on the overall total price of all items listed in the Supplemental Schedule B attached in Section J of this solicitation. Unit Prices proposed in the Supplemental Schedule B shall be Firm Fixed Prices (FFP). Quantities listed in the Supplemental Schedule B are estimates and are used for evaluation purposes only. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if any of the listed prices are significantly unbalanced. Failure to include all prices will exclude the offeror from further consideration for award.

b. Please note that the unit prices proposed on the Supplemental Schedule B will be used to select the contract awardee. The awardee will receive a minimum order with the basic contract award.

3 FACTOR 3 – PASTPERFORMANCE

3.13 Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions and the

Government may use databases such as the www.cpars.gov and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

3.13.1 Recency is defined as performance less than three years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts/task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

3.13.2 Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of services described in this RFP.

3.14 Past performance will be rated on an –acceptable or –unacceptable basis using the following ratings:

Rating Description

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. (See note below)

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.

http://www.cpars.gov/