SECTION M - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FOR AWARD

M-1. INTRODUCTION

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror's capabilities and proposals for the JOC contract. The Government will compare each offeror's capabilities and proposal elements against predetermined measures of merit related to the Government's requirement defined herein.

One contract will be awarded using competitive negotiation.

The solicitation(s) shall be prepared in accordance with FAR Part 15, and include the following evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Prime contractor within 50-Mile Radius FBI Redstone located at 4942 Fowler Road, Huntsville, AL 35898.

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Team Organization & Key Personnel Qualifications Factor 4: Contract Level & Task Order Management Approach Factor 5: Project Schedule (Seed Project)

Factor 6: Cost/Price & Contract Level Coefficients.

M-2 EVALUTION SELECTION BASIS

The following instructions describe the selection process, the evaluation factors, and their importance, how they will be evaluated and sample Past Performance Questionnaire, Corporate Performance Reference Information, and Resume templates.

This is a competitive, best value source selection for 8(a) Small Business companies that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection. This regulation is available electronically at the Acquisition.Gov website, www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations. The Government will select the most highly qualified offeror for award, based upon an integrated assessment of Prime Contractor Location, Past Performance, Team Organization & Key Personnel Qualifications, Contract Level and Task Order Management Approach, Seed Project (Project Schedule), and Cost/Price and Contract Level Coefficients. The offeror selected will be based on being responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. This will result in the highest rated being selected for award where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criterions in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to award without discussions. Should the SSA determine that discussions are necessary, a competitive range determination will be made prior to conducting. This range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of all factors.

The Contracting Officer (CO) will notify offerors in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. That notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered. The Government seeks to select an offeror who gives the FBI the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements.

M-3. EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY PHASE I

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Selection for Phase Two will be made to the offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Prime contractor with an established office for a minimum of one (1) year within a 50- Mile Radius FBI Redstone located at 4942 Fowler Road, Huntsville, AL 35898.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Team Organization & Key Personnel Qualifications

Factor 4: Contract Level & Task Order Management Approach

Factor 5: Seed Project (Project Schedule)

Factor 6: Cost/Price and Contract Level Coefficients

Relative Importance of Factors. The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Past Performance, Team Organization & Key Personnel Qualifications, Contract Level and Task Order Management Approach, Seed Project (Project Schedule), and Cost/Price and Contract Level Coefficients. Factor 2 (Past Performance) being most important; Factor 3 (Team Organization & Key Personnel Qualifications) next in importance; Factor 4 (Contract Level and Task Order Management Approach) third most important, Factor 5 (Seed Project/Project Schedule) fourth most important and Factor 6 (Cost/Price and Contract Level Coefficients) being least important. Factor 1: Prime contractor with an office within a 50-Mile Radius of FBI Redstone located at 4942 Fowler Road, Huntsville, AL 35898 will be rated on a Pass/Fail scale.

Offerors that are not within the 50-Mile radius will not be considered.

FACTOR 1: Prime Contractor with an office within a 50-mile radius of FBI Redstone

The technical factor will be evaluated using a Pass/Fail rating. The prime contractor MUST have an established office for a minimum of one (1) year within a 50-Mile Radius of FBI Redstone located at 4942 Fowler Road, Huntsville, AL 35898.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE-

Offerors shall provide a minimum of (3) and no more than five (5) recent and relevant job order style projects (within the last 8 years) where they have performed as a prime contractor for projects similar in size (ranging from $2,000 - $750,000), scope (construction, alteration, and repair of industrial, commercial, office, and utility projects). At least one of the past performance references must be for projects with which the proposed project team (Prime and Sub) were involved. Projects for government offices, teaming facilities, classified facilities, as well as Operation Centers and IT requirements will be considered more relevant. Completed projects within a 100-mile radius of Redstone Arsenal will be more relevant.

Reference checks demonstrating good working relationships between Prime, and Sub as well will increase the government’s confidence level. Past Performance demonstrating timely and satisfactory work performance, a record of outstanding performance and positive references; as well as strong working relationships with key trade partners will add to the government’s level of confidence. Offerors are advised that the Government may consider and evaluate any other past performance data obtained from other sources and use the obtained information in the evaluation and rating of the Offerors’ past performance.

Past performance shall demonstrate present/past performance on projects of similar size, scope, cost, and complexity through the submission of the Attachment C -Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and Attached D – Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract Reference Sheet. The Offeror shall instruct the reference to complete both Attachment C PPQ and Attached D PPI, and send the completed documents via e-mail to Andre Wilson (alwilson6@fbi.gov) and Britt Sanford (bmsanford@fbi.gov).

Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the table below.

Table 1. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing with substantial progress or must have been performed during the past three (3) mailto:alwilson6@fbi.gov mailto:bmsanford@fbi.gov and no more than eight (8) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts, including their relative order of importance (reference Section M). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical factors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to projects involving Sustainment, Repair, Modernization (SRM), and minor construction. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the below table of relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table 2. Past Performance Recency/Relevancy Rating Method Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and recency contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical factors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance ratings will be rated more favorably than a neutral confidence rating.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

FACTOR 3 TEAM ORGANIZATION & KEY PERSONNEL QUALTIFICATIONS:

The offeror’s management organization, size, and composition, to include a description of functions and authorities of key (on-site) personnel. The offeror shall provide the qualifications of the members of the onsite staff and their responsibilities should the offeror receive contract award (including resumes with names).

Please reference the Technical Specifications, General Conditions Management and Personnel for minimum qualification requirements for key personnel. The proposal shall include a complete staffing matrix to demonstrate how staffing will be aligned for the different contract demand levels. The matrix should demonstrate the offeror’s understanding and expectation to increase staffing as necessary as the number of task orders and awarded project amounts fluctuate over the life of the contract. The proposal should show an organizational diagram and illustrate where the on-site staff fit into the offeror’s company. The proposal should further define the authority held by the members of the home office and onsite staffs. This plan should detail the offeror’s approach for managing operations within the FBI Facility in Washington, DC and surrounding areas.

The offeror’s plan to recruit and retain a qualified, certified, and trained workforce throughout the duration of the contract. This plan shall also include the timeframe to replace key personnel vacancies. Key Personnel with licenses, registrations & credentials such as DBIA, PMI, RA, PE, LEED are desired (certifications from an accredited source may receive additional weight from the Government during evaluations).

Identify all Key Personnel involved in projects submitted for past performance. Key Personnel resumes clearly illustrate the responsibilities and lines of communication and authority relative to your project management team. Describe your process for optimizing communication and integration with government and key stakeholders at the Project level as well as subcontractors and suppliers.

As part of the offeror’s team organization, provide in detail any existing or planned agreements with Subcontractors the successful offeror will utilize at the project level. Explain in detail the number of subcontractor agreements and who the agreements are with, the setup for such agreements, and how those agreements will be advantageous to the Government when procuring work off this Contract.

The Contract Level & Task Order Management Approach will be evaluated using a combined technical/risk rating and provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. This rating will reflect the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through the combined technical/risk color ratings listed in Table 1. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the factor requirements.

FACTOR 4: Contract Level & Task Order Management Approach –

The Offeror shall provide information on the Offeror’s contract level and management approach for executing the JOC and each Task Order. Offeror’s proposal shall clearly demonstrate an understanding of the project requirements, understanding of the integrated JOC process and clearly and concisely describe the organizational structure, including contractual arrangements, and lines of authority. The Offeror shall provide information on how they propose to manage the project through lines of communication, planning and scheduling and quality control, safety, how they are selected and when key trade partners (subcontractors) are brought on board, etc. Also, offerors are requested to show evidence of how you manage multiple JOC task orders at any one time. For example, if given 20 Task Orders at end of a fiscal year, how would your team manage the work while meeting schedules and at the highest quality and safety standards. The Offeror’s proposal shall also address the following:

a. The offeror’s proposed level of subcontracting and in-housework accomplishment. This shall also include the method and criteria used in selection of subcontractors and the policies and procedures for subcontractor management, including surveillance, quality control, scheduling, and performance.

Primary teaming arrangements with sub-contractors for the following disciplines will be given a favorable rating: Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, and HVAC.

b. The offeror’s approach to ensuring successful minimal design services and professional engineering support. If the offeror does not plan to use in-house design staff, it may include a plan for mobilizing these design firms to develop project designs under the compressed time constraints required for this overall effort.

c. The offeror’s approach to detection and resolution of problems with the actual work in sufficient detail to evaluate the frequency and quality of Contractor inspections and how progress will be measured. Specifically, the offeror shall explain how their staff will administer their Quality Control Plan. A formal quality control plan is required with submission of this proposal.

FACTOR 3 and FACTOR 4 RATINGS:

The ratings for Factor 3 and Factor 4 will be evaluated using a combined technical/risk rating and provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. This rating will reflect the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk color ratings listed in Table 3. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets Factor 3 and Factor 4 requirements.

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Management Method Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is un-awardable.

FACTOR 5: Project Schedule (Seed Project)

The offeror will provide a proposal for Window Washing. The offeror's proposal shall capture all required labor, tools, materials, supplies, equipment, and all other items necessary to successfully complete the project. The offeror's proposal shall properly denote all expected disciplines and efforts required to complete the project in a feasible manner that coincides with the requested period of performance of 90 calendar days. Offerors are to include their proposed coefficient from Factor 6 with the seed project.

Offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the Seed Project Statement of Work and the ability to locate and utilize appropriate line items from the Gordian JOC System. The offeror shall provide a complete list of priced items from the Gordian JOC System and any non-priced items that demonstrates a complete proposal for the given seed project. The price/cost estimate must flow in a logical order and clearly address all areas of the design. The price proposal shall include all factors representing a total cost the Government would expect to pay for the seed project.

Offerors are to include a preliminary construction schedule for the seed project.

FACTOR 6: Cost/Price & Contract Level Coefficients

The price proposal will be evaluated using the information listed on the attached Price Schedule (Section B).

Using this information, the annual amount will be multiplied by the offeror’s proposed coefficient for each contract line-item number (CLIN). The resulting adjusted total estimated value for each CLIN will be added together to arrive at the total estimated usage for each performance period. All performance periods will then be added together to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for all years.

Although the Price/Cost Factor is considered less important than the combined non-cost factors, it will contribute substantially to the source selection decision. Price will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and completeness only, and will not be rated or color-coded, as are technical evaluation criteria.

The evaluation of price will be based primarily on each offeror's proposed coefficient(s). The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Price analysis: The process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit.

b. Comparison of proposed coefficients received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness.

c. Comparison of previously proposed coefficients and previous Government contract coefficients with current proposed coefficients for the same or similar effort.

Average estimated volume is based on a maximum contract value of $11.5M over 5 years and will be used for evaluation purposes only. The offeror should not consider this figure as any indication of proposal contract usage.

CLIN Project Distribution

Estimated Dollar Value

(EDV)

Contractor’s Proposed

Coefficient

(CPC)

Evaluated Price (EDV x CPC)

0001 95% $1,900,000.00 $0.00 0002 2% $40,000.00 $0.00 0003 2% $40,000.00 $0.00 0004 1% $20,000.00 $0.00

Base Year Estimated Total 100% $4,000,000.00 $0.00

Note: The above table only represents the base year.

M.5 Competitive Range

The Government reserves the right to limit, for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (10 U.S.C.2305 (b)(4) and 41 U.S.C. 3703). If the contracting officer decides that an offeror's proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

M.6 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate offers without discussions (except clarifications, as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, and the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition, among the most highly rated proposals. If discussions are necessary due to perceived weaknesses or other issues, which must be addressed before award, they will be conducted with only those offerors determined to be within the competitive range. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (less than 24 hours) in responding to the contracting officer.

M.7 Final Proposal Revisions

If discussions are conducted, final proposal revisions will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, final proposal revisions will not be required. Offerors are advised that unsupported final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.

M.8 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.9 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any weakness or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M.10 Additional Requirements

Additional elements to be eligible for award are elements of evaluation in the source selection that relate to proposed terms and conditions, results of pre-award surveys and other reviews. Since they are not directly tied to the specific evaluation areas, these additional elements do not receive a color/adjectival rating, proposal risk assessment or performance confidence assessment. The following conditions shall be met in order to be eligible for award:

a. Determination of offeror’s responsibility in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1.

b. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the work requirements of the contract and may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. The government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an offeror’s proposal. The proposal must comply with requirements of law, regulation, and all conditions set forth in the solicitation.

c. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.