Section M - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Evaluation Process: Proposals will be evaluated using Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) method. Offers will be ranked from lowest to highest based on initial assessment of Total Evaluated Price (TEP), followed by a full evaluation of technical acceptability, starting with the lowest three TEP proposals. If the Government receives three (3) or fewer proposals, all proposals will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. A price analysis will be conducted on the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal.

Award will be made to the lowest TEP proposal meeting the technical acceptability standards (contingent upon contractor's responsibility determination). The Government reserves the right to evaluate additional proposals starting with the next lowest TEP.

Offerors are advised that their initial submission should be their best effort. Only technically acceptable proposals, either initially or as a result of exchanges, are eligible for award. If award is made without exchanges, proposal revisions will not be permitted.

2. Evaluation Factors: In evaluating proposals, the Government will select the proposal that is the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer to the Government. The Government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors. To arrive at an award decision, each offer will be assessed in accordance with the following evaluation factors for the contract:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Price

2.1 Technical Evaluation: The Government will begin Technical Evaluation Acceptability with the three (3) lowest priced proposals. The Government reserves the right to evaluate additional proposals for technical acceptability if in the Government's best interest. If additional proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability, they will be selected in the order of total evaluated price. Technical evaluations will continue until the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal is identified. The Government, at its discretion, may continue technical evaluations until the Contracting Officer determines that a sufficient number of technically acceptable proposals have been identified to permit determination of price fairness and reasonableness based on adequate price competition.

2.1.1 Technical Factor: For the purposes of technical evaluation, the term "offeror" will include any proposed teaming arrangements. The technical proposal will be evaluated for the following technical factors and subfactors:

(i) Sub-Factor 1: Project Management and Roadway Installation: Provide a narrative that describes the offer's proposed technical and management approach that captures the major components of the work described in the Statement of Work, deliverables, and specifications to complete the project. This report should demonstrate a clear understanding of the project's requirements and a well-defined plan for successful execution. At a minimum, the report must address the following critical elements.

a. Material Source Selection for Asphalt and Concrete: The offeror must clearly identify the proposed material suppliers (e.g., asphalt plant, concrete batch plant). The offeror should describe their process for selecting material sources;

factors such as quality, cost, availability, and transportation logistics. The offeror should address any potential challenges related to material availability or delivery and propose mitigation strategies.

b. Expected Delivery and Operation Equipment: The offeror should provide a comprehensive list of the equipment necessary for the project, including but not limited to the applicable: pavers, rollers, milling machines, concrete trucks, and any specialized equipment required for curb placement or other specific tasks.

c. Curb Placement Methodology: The offeror must clearly describe the proposed methodology for installing the curbs, including the type of curb, the installation process (e.g., formwork, pouring, finishing), and the equipment and personnel required. The offeror should address how they will ensure proper alignment, grade, and stability of the curbs. Additionally, the offeror should describe the quality control measures that will be implemented to verify that the curbs meet the specified dimensions, tolerances, and finish requirements. The description should include details on any specialized techniques or equipment that will be used for curb placement.

d. Construction Quality Control Procedures: The offeror must provide a detailed outline of their quality control plan, encompassing all phases of the project from material procurement to final acceptance. This plan should include specific procedures for inspecting materials, monitoring construction processes, verifying compliance with specifications, and if any third-party company testers will be used. The offeror should identify the personnel responsible (or company) for quality control and describe their qualifications and experience. The plan should include details on testing frequency, acceptance criteria, and corrective actions to be taken in the event of non-compliance. The offeror should also address how they will document and track quality control activities.

(ii) Sub-Factor 2: Technical Experience: Provide comprehensive information on the offeror's experience and qualifications in performing similar asphalt pavement and gutter repair projects. This section is crucial for demonstrating the offeror's ability to successfully execute the project based on proven experience and qualified personnel. The information should be clear, concise, and directly relevant to the specific requirements of the Repair Ft Griffin project. This section should include, at a minimum, the following elements:

a. Project Experience: Provide detailed information on at least three (3) past projects (within 5 years) of similar scope, complexity, and value to the current Repair Ft Griffin project. Preference will be given to projects involving similar types of asphalt pavement repair, gutter replacement/repair, and project constraints (e.g., working in occupied areas, traffic management). The following Information is required for each project:

i. Project Name and Location: Identify the project name and the location where the work was performed.

ii. Client Name and Contact Information: Provide the name, title, phone number, and email address of a contact person at the client organization who can verify the project's successful completion.

iii. Project Description: Provide a detailed description of the work performed, highlighting the specific types of asphalt pavement repair and gutter work completed. Include the total area of pavement repaired, the linear feet of gutters installed/repaired, and any unique challenges encountered and overcome.

iv. Contract Value: State the total contract value for the project.

v. Years of Performance: Provide the start and completion years for the project.

vi. Role of the Offeror: Clearly state the offeror's role in the project

(e.g., prime contractor, subcontractor).

b. Personnel Qualifications: Identify all key personnel who will be directly involved in the Repair Ft Griffin project. Provide detailed information on their qualifications, relevant experience, and specific roles in the project.

i. Required Information for Each Key Person:

ii. Name and Title: State the full name and title of the individual.

iii. Proposed Role on the Project: Clearly state the individual's proposed role and responsibilities on the Repair Ft Griffin project.

iv. Relevant Experience: Provide a detailed summary of the individual's experience in performing similar work, including the number of years of experience, specific projects worked on, and the individual's responsibilities on those projects.

v. Certifications and Training: List any relevant certifications or training completed by the individual (e.g., asphalt pavement technician certifications, quality control certifications, safety training).

The Government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each sub-factor. For the technical proposal to be rated as "Acceptable", the technical factor and all sub factors must be rated acceptable. If any technical factor or sub factor is rated "Unacceptable" the overall proposal will be rated as "Unacceptable". Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of exchanges, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without exchanges.

2.2 Price Evaluation: The evaluated price shall be the total price proposed by the offeror for all CLINS outlined on the Price Schedule. Proposals will then be ranked from lowest to highest based on total evaluated price.

2.2.1 Price Factor: Lowest price will be determined based on the TEP. The TEP will be established on all proposals, which will then be ranked from lowest to highest price.

(i) Price Reasonableness: The Contracting Officer (CO) will make a determination that a prospective contractor is responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1 and that the prices offered are reasonable and balanced using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. Note that unreasonably high prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for the Government not to proceed with award. The burden of proof for credibility of prices rests with the Offeror. If at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition does not exists, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, Offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data (as appropriate) for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

Technical Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirement of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.