Section M - EvalFactorsforAward.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

I. EVALUATION OF OFFERORS

A. Phase One Evaluation

Phase One Qualification Proposals will be evaluated with respect to the following technical factors and subfactors. Technical factors are listed in descending order of importance, factor 1 being most important:

a. Factor 1 – Specialized experience and technical competence

b. Factor 2 – Experience and Team Professional Qualifications

c. Factor 3 – Offeror & Team Experience with Treatment of Historic

Properties, Federal Sustainable Design, & National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)

d. Factor 4 – Recent Past Performance

e. Factor 5 – Capacity of the Offeror and proposed subcontractors

f. Factor 6 – Location of the firm

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 1 – SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL

COMPETENCE

The Government will evaluate Factor 1 by reviewing submissions and assigning an adjectival rating.

1. The Government will review Offerors proposals up to first five past examples completed since start of calendar year 2017. Projects after number five will not be reviewed for factor #1. If a past example is before calendar year 2017, the example will be deemed non-responsive.

2. The Government will review and evaluate responsive past examples to ensure the Offeror submitted at a minimum of two of four criteria (2.a, 2.b, 2.c, and 2.d).

a. Master planning on a campus and/or military base equal to or greater than fifty (50) acres. 50 acres must be for one single location versus adding acreage from multiple sites to achieve 50 acres.

b. Concept Studies

c. Feasibility studies for an existing building,

d. Programming, planning, and/or design for research facilities.

3. The Government will review to ensure Offeror provided for each project presented in addition to information above:

i. Completed date of service

ii. Project owner name, email address, and telephone number

iii. Acreage of the campus and/or military base (factor 1.a)

iv. Minimum of two factors (2.a, 2.b, 2.c, and 2.d) are addressed

v. Offeror’s role in each example was identified

Offerors that provide responsive examples that address criteria 2.a, 2.b, 2.c, and 2.d will be reviewed more favorably. The more criteria are responsively addressed, the more favorably Offeror is reviewed.

In the event the Offeror does not have experience since the start of calendar year 2017, Factor #1 will not be reviewed, nor any other factors, and the Offeror will be deemed non-responsive.

Offerors that fail to meet the qualifications of Factor 1 will not be evaluated for subsequent evaluation factors and will not be further considered for award.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 2 –EXPERIENCE AND TEAM PROFESSIONAL

QUALIFICATIONS

The Government will evaluate Factor 2 by reviewing submissions and assigning an adjectival rating.

1. The Government will review professional qualification for Offeror and its proposed subcontractors and key personnel. If the experience is earlier than calendar year 2017 for personnel that experience will not be considered.

2. The Government will review the Offeror’s proposed team and organization chart of proposed team.

3. The Government will review SF 330 Sections C and D for key personnel proposed by the Offeror.

4. The Government will review SF 330 resumes to verify the Offeror has addressed all labor categories in Section “C” Statement of work paragraph 2.1 “Contractor Key Personnel”

5. The Government will review SF 330 key personnel participations in examples.

If Offerors collaborated with team members previously, it will be reviewed more favorably than those who have not collaborated.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 3 – OFFEROR & TEAM EXPERIENCE WITH

TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES, FEDERAL SUSTAINABLE DESIGN, &

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION (NCPC)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s experience to ensure the examples start during or after calendar year 2017 along with customer names and email addresses.

If the Offeror submitted five past examples for factor #1, Government will review

a) 20 page limit proposal for factor #3 examples that are up to one (1) page each.

b) And/or SF 330 Section H.

If the Offeror is proposing in such a manner that factor #3 examples are a combination of SF 330 Section “F” and 20 page limitation proposal and SF 330 Section H, 20 page proposal and SF 330 Section F and SF Section H will be reviewed.

The Government will evaluate that Offeror’s and its subcontractors have addressed their experience with items 1, 2 and 3 below:

1. Experience in the areas of applying the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties;

2. Experience with Federal sustainability requirements and clean energy, sustainability, and greenhouse gas reduction studies and analyses;

3. Experience with matters directly evaluated by National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC).

Offerors that provide responsive examples that address criteria 1, 2, 3 above will be reviewed more favorably. The more criteria are responsively addressed, the more favorably Offeror is reviewed.

Offerors who have knowledge and experience with the local governing bodies and related agencies in Colorado and Maryland will be reviewed even more favorably.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 4 – RECENT PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s past performance by reviewing examples in factor #1 and #3.

The Government evaluate the past performance on the following:

1. Quality of Work;

2. Compliance with performance schedules;

3. Contract cost control.

NIST shall additionally use performance evaluations data from the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS), in accordance with FAR 42.1501 and may consider credible documentation included in the SF 330. If other data is obtained through other than CPARS and/or the submitted SF330, either favorable or unfavorable, during the entire selection process and prior to award it may be considered.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 5 – CAPACITY OF THE OFFEROR AND PROPOSED

SUBCONTRACTORS

The Government will evaluate Factor 5 to determine the offeror’s capacity and their subcontractor’s capacity for current work and planned work (1 year starting from www.sam.gov RFP Date) .

The Government will review how the Offeror will comply with FAR 52.219-14, which requires at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel be expended by Offeror’s employees and/or their proposed subcontractors who are small business.

EVALUATION OF FACTOR 6 – LOCATION OF THE FIRM

The Government will evaluate Factor 6 to determine the Offeror’s business address is within Continental United States.

The Government will review the Offeror’s location more favorably if it is within 75 miles of NIST (either campus). The method for checking location will be via an internet mapping (driving) program.

The Gaithersburg campus address is: 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. The Boulder campus address is: 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305.

Part II (Firms deemed “highly qualified”):

The Government will review all Offerors who complete part I. Only offerors who are deemed “highly qualified” will be evaluated for Part II. The Government contemplates that at least three firms will be considered “highly qualified” for part II to occur.

A) NIST may have oral discussions with each Offeror either at their place of business or in a virtual environment. Offerors will be given a minimum 7 days’ notice of the discussions.

B) Offeror will be afforded 60 minutes of uninterrupted presentation time to review Part I factors. The Government will have a timer to ensure that none of the firms go over allotted time. At 60 minute mark, the offeror will instructed to stop presentation.

C) Over a period of up to 30 minutes after the presentation, NIST will ask questions related to Part I where the Offeror provided insufficient detail. If Offeror provides sufficient detail, there will be no questions.

At the conclusion of all the discussions, the Government will rank Phase II firms against evaluation criteria. The firms will be ranked from #1 to the last position.

FEE PROPOSAL

Only those firms selected for award will be invited to provide a fee proposal. The Government will review the Overhead and Billing Rate Table; Offeror’s methodology used http://www.sam.gov/ in developing their Billing Rate Schedule; audited financial statements as applicable, a narrative statement, safety plan, certificates of insurance and endorsements. Refer to Section L Instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents.

In accordance with FAR 36.606 (f), If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated, the contracting officer shall obtain a written final proposal revision from the firm, and notify the firm that negotiations have been terminated. The contracting officer shall then initiate negotiations with the next firm on the final selection list. This procedure shall be continued until a mutually satisfactory contract has been negotiated.

If negotiations fail with all selected firms, the contracting officer shall refer the matter to the selection authority who, after consulting with the contracting officer as to why a contract cannot be negotiated, may direct the evaluation board to recommend additional firms in accordance with 36.602.

ADJECTIVAL RATING

Adjectival Rating

Description

Excellent The proposal demonstrates a superior understanding of the requirements and an approach that includes strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. No significant weakness identified. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will be sufficient to minimize risk.

Good The proposal demonstrates a considerable understanding of the requirements and an approach that includes strengths that will benefit the Government. Any identified weakness has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Satisfactory The proposal demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets the Governments requirements. The proposal has no deficiencies but may include some weakness that can potentially cause disruption of schedules or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will minimize any risk.

Marginal The proposal demonstrates a marginal understanding of the requirements and the approach marginally meets the requirements.

Unacceptable The proposal fails to demonstrate a basic understanding of the requirements and/or the approach fails to meet the requirements. The proposal has major https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-36#FAR_36_602 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-36#FAR_36_602 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-36#FAR_36_602 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-36#FAR_36_602 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-36#FAR_36_602 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-36#FAR_36_602 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-36#FAR_36_602 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-36#FAR_36_602 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-36#FAR_36_602 omissions or inadequate details to assure the evaluators that the offeror understands the requirements. The proposal presents an unacceptable risk and cannot meet the requirements without major revisions.