SECTION M - EVALUATION CRITERIA - Module Entrance - .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 said 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.

M-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive, best value source selection for Small Business companies that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition.gov website, www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of key personnel and team members, project approach, relevant experience, and cost/price. Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed 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 and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the FBI the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria 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.

M-3. EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

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

Factor 1: 150-mile radius to CJIS Campus in Clarksburg, WV.

Factor 2: Key Personnel and Team Members

Factor 3: Project Approach

Factor 4: Past Performance

Factor 5: Cost/Price

Relative importance of factors are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1: 150-mile radius being most important; Factor 2 Key Personnel and Team Members next in importance; Factor 3 Project Approach next important; Factor 4 Past Performance being next in importance; and Factor 5 cost/price being the least important. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the first four factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. However, cost/price will still contribute substantially to the best value award decision.

FACTOR 1: 150 MILE RADIUS

The FBI will evaluate the mileage radius on a pass/fail basis. The mile radius factor is a gatekeeper for this RFP. To be considered for an award the offeror shall have an office located within 150 miles of the CJIS Campus in Clarksburg, WV. Should an offeror not have an office within the 150-mile radius of the CJIS campus, their proposal will not be evaluated.

FACTOR 2: Key Personnel and Team Members

The Offeror shall provide the Offeror’s organizational chart including all key sub-consultants and subcontractors, key team members, key personnel qualifications and their intended roles and responsibilities for executing this contract. The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate an understanding of the project requirements associated with the design-bid-build process. The Offeror shall present information on how they propose to staff the project, how the team will interact, and their ability and commitment to provide technical resources required to support the Management Plan. The following positions are considered Key Personnel for this task order: Project Manager, Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager. Resumes are required for all key personnel. Certificates for welding, electrical, mechanical, etc. should be provided.

Key Personnel:

Project Manager

The Project Manager (PM) is the main point of contact for the contractor’s organization. It is essential that the PM develops an effective and professional relationship with the government representatives. Manage the scope, schedule, budget, quality, and risk for the duration of the of construction project. Ensure major deliverables are provided on time and within budget. Participate in all construction progress meetings and other meetings as required. Effective management of personnel, material, and equipment resources. Ensure compliance with all relevant federal and state regulations.

A graduate of a four-year accredited college/university program or has 10+ years of experience in one of the following disciplines: Engineering, Architecture, Construction Management, Engineering

Technology, Building Construction, or Building Science, with a minimum of 5 years’ experience as a Project Superintendent, QC Manager, Project Manager, Project Engineer or Construction Manager on similar size and type construction contracts which included the major trades that are part of this

Contract. The individual must have at least two years’ experience as a Project Manager. The individual must be familiar with the requirements of EM 385-1-1, and have experience in the areas of hazard identification, safety compliance, and sustainability.

Superintendent

The project superintendent is primarily responsible for managing subcontractors and coordinating day-to-day production and schedule adherence on the project. The superintendent is required to attend progress meetings, Red Zone meetings, partnering meetings, and quality control meetings.

The superintendent or qualified alternative must be on-site at all times during the performance of this contract until the work is completed and accepted.

Provide project superintendent with a minimum of 10 years’ experience in construction with at least

5 of those years as a superintendent on projects similar in size and complexity. The individual must be familiar with the requirements of EM 385-1-1 and have experience in the areas of hazard identification and safety compliance. The individual must be capable of interpreting a critical path schedule and construction drawings. The qualification requirements for the alternate superintendent are the same as for the project superintendent. The Contracting Officer may request proof of the superintendent's qualifications at any point in the project if the performance of the superintendent is in question.

Quality Control Manager

The Quality Control (QC) Manager shall implement and manage the QC program. The primary duties and responsibilities of the QC Manager are to manage and implement the QC program on this contract. The QC Manager can also be designated as the safety competent person or site safety and health officer (SSHO) as defined by EM 385-1-1, or the Project Superintendent. The QC Manager is required to attend the Pre-Construction Conference, design planning, design presentation and review meetings, Partnering Meetings, QC Plan Meetings, attend the Coordination and Mutual

Understanding Meeting, conduct the QC meetings, perform the three phases of control except for those phases of control designated to be performed by QC specialists, perform submittal review and approval, ensure testing is performed and provide QC certifications and documentation required in this task order.

The QC Manager is responsible for managing and coordinating the three phases of control and documentation performed by the QC specialists, Testing Laboratory personnel and any other inspection and testing personnel required by this Contract. The QC Manager is the manager of all

QC Activities. The QC Manager shall be the graduate of a four-year accredited college/university program or has 10+ years of experience in one of the following disciplines: Engineering, Architecture, Construction Management, Engineering Technology, Building Construction, or

Building Science, with a minimum of 10-years’ experience as a superintendent, QC Manager, project manager, project engineer or construction manager on similar size and type construction contracts which included the major trades that are part of this task order. The individual shall have at least 5-years’ experience as a QC Manager. The individual must be familiar with the requirements of EM 385-1-1 and have experience in the areas of hazard identification and safety compliance.

Factor 3: Project Approach

The Offeror shall outline their project approach describing how they will manage the materials and equipment supply chain from placement of orders to delivery, receipt, storage, and utilization on site.

The Offeror shall provide information on how they will manage the skilled labor resources from acquisition to utilization, addressing potential labor shortages, and their retention plan. The Offeror shall provide a Logistic Plan showing how the site is to be utilized, traffic management, laydown areas, temporary parking, permanent and temporary utility works, spoils and waste management, collaboration and coordination with other contractors working on the CJIS Campus site, and any construction impacts on operations and maintenance activities of the Installation and FBI.

The Offeror must provide a Preliminary Project Baseline Schedule (no page limit) prepared and submitted in native file format using the most current version of Microsoft Project or other software compatible with Microsoft Project, along with a PDF copy. The schedule must be phased in a way that only one module entrance/exit being closed at a time, starting with Module B.

Items to include in the schedule include but are not limited to the following:

1. Mobilization

2. All major project activities and key milestones, including consultations with the Key Stakeholders, the Government and its Subcontractors and major package submittals, design review and audit activities.

3. Procurement of major equipment and materials.

4. Demolition and construction sequencing, phasing and staging.

5. Preparatory work (maintenance of traffic, temporary works, detour routes, etc.).

6. All infrastructure works.

7. Construction start and completion dates for all construction phases, that reasonably demonstrate the achievement of Substantial Completion of the entire Project by no later than the Substantial Completion Date.

8. Critical Path, including relationship lines.

9. System integration, testing, commissioning and activation process.

10. Substantial Completion.

11. Any other significant work activities; and

12. Final works, Punch List items, including site clean-up, demobilization.

In the written proposal, the Offeror must provide a description of its strategies for developing and implementing its proposed schedule. As the building will remain occupied and operational during construction, the Offeror must address their plan to phase the work and maintain separation between construction activity and the occupants/operations. The Offeror must articulate its plan for communication, adherence and recovery strategies that will help maintain the proposed schedule. The Offeror’s description of its schedule must provide details of their approach to schedule control mechanisms.

Table 1. Combined Key Personnel/Team Members and Project Approach

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.

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 4: Past Performance

The Offeror must provide up to five examples projects of similar size, scope, and cost as the Module Entrance Construction Project. Provide examples that the Offeror has successfully completed within the last 8 years. Describe the project, relevant activities, project start and end dates, and key personnel/subcontractor roles on project. The Offeror must clearly identify how each example project is relevant to the Module Entrance Construction Project.

Table 1. Past Performance 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 factor 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 relevant experience 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) 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). 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 5 Cost/Price Proposal

Offerors must submit pricing in the pricing template provided. Additional or supporting pricing documentation can be submitted for review and consideration.

Although the Cost/Price 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. After an evaluation of the other factors have been completed and rankings have been established, cost to the Government will be compared against these rankings to determine the combination most advantageous to the Government.

The evaluation of price will be based primarily on each offeror's proposed price. 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 prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness.

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

M.4 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.5 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract 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.6 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.7 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.8 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency 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.9 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 or subfactors. 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.