Section M_EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD.docx

Section M—EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

A. Phase I:

Factor I – Past Performance Factor II – Technical Approach Factor III – Key Personnel Factor IV – Capability to Perform B. Phase II:

Factor I – Technical Solution Factor II – Project Schedule Factor III - Price

(b) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Best Value Tradeoff (Tradeoff) source selection in which technically acceptable competing Offerors will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and will then be evaluated for Price fairness and reasonableness. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price alone. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced Offeror is determined to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision, where the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal, and the rationale for tradeoffs, shall be documented in the contract file in accordance with FAR 15.406.

(c) By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

PHASE I

FACTOR I – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance of recent and relevant projects and specialized experience as well as the quality rendered of the projects provided, in order to determine the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully and help determine responsibility. Past performance information shall include, but not limited to evaluation of past performance of the firm having experience in construction and renovation projects meeting U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) 800 and 787 standards, quality, timely performance, management effectiveness, and safety. An overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned, but each past performance reference will first be evaluated for “recency” and “relevancy”. Therefore, the following ratings tables will be used. “Recent” past performance is defined as projects completed within the last five years, from the date of issuance of solicitation. Past Performance references meeting the “minimum threshold” criteria, but not related to hospital renovations, will be rated “Somewhat Relevant”. Past Performance references meeting the “minimum threshold” criteria, will be assigned a relevancy rating based on the below rating definitions, with regard to the tasks outlined in the Specification of similar scope and complexity.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

A. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references of their choice of completed projects, similar in size and scope (minimum threshold: Projects where the principle objective was USP 797/800 renovations to hospital facilities within the United States, with a total contract value exceeding $1,000,000). The Offeror must provide for each reference, the reference's company name, POCs, address, contact information to include phone number and e-mail address, project description, dollar value and period of performance. SEE NOTE BELOW, regarding the past performance questionnaire. Past Performance of subcontractors may be used, but future unavailability of the subcontractor to perform work may result in contract termination.

B. EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING: The Government will consider and evaluate the Offeror's past performance information, to include the references and completed surveys, which are deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP, including evaluation of the Offeror’s adherence to period of performance/time of design and construction according to contract specifications without deficiencies. The Government may also use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices to include the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and commercial sources, to assess performance. “Recent” past performance is defined as projects completed within the last five years, from the date of issuance of solicitation.

C. Relevance ratings and Performance Confidence Assessment ratings will be assigned, as defined in the above tables.

D. Work under this Section shall be performed by organizations which have successfully performed at least three projects of similar size and type, in a similar climate within the past five years.”

NOTE: The contractor shall send out the attached past performance questionnaires (Solicitation Attachment C) to each of their references listed under the Experience technical factor or any other references that the Offeror deems necessary. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of Offeror’s performance deemed relevant and recent to the requirements of this solicitation. The references must return the survey directly to the Government Contracting Officer identified on the survey, via email, by the due date for proposals.

FACTOR II - TECHNICAL APPROACH

Offers will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for this design-build project as defined in the solicitation submittal requirements. The assessment of the Offeror’s method to manage the project shall be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation.

NOTE: Those offers not meeting the minimum standard for acceptability will not be considered for award (i.e. fail to meet minimums as defined by attached Specifications). Design and construction approach sub-factors will be weighted equally, and all areas must have SATISFACTORY rating or better. The Technical approach sub-factors ratings of SATISFACTORY or better will be required in order to be considered for award.

Evaluators shall assign a rating based on the minimum requirements stated below.

A. Sub-Factor 1 - Design Approach

Types of Rating Methods

Rating Descriptors

Adjectival

A description of the organization’s design approach to include project planning approach(s) and management approach(s) for multi-discipline, phased projects.

1. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides a brief narrative outlining the following:

a. The Offeror has clearly demonstrated that they have established project planning approaches, specifically the Offeror has identified the principal business concepts used and principle technologies deployed.

b. The Offeror has clearly demonstrated that they have experience with the design of multidiscipline, phased projects, USP 797/800 renovations and negative/positive pressure rooms specifically identifying the principal business concepts used and principle technologies deployed.

B. Sub-Factor 2 – Construction Approach

Types of Rating Methods

Adjectival

government. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

1. CRITERIA: Offerors must provide a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) references of their choice of completed projects, similar in size and scope (minimum threshold: Projects where the principle objective was structural repair/structural renovations of hospitals within the United States, with a total contract value exceeding $1,000,000) to the requirement being solicited. Experience of subcontractors may be used to fulfill this requirement, but future unavailability of the subcontractor to perform work may result in contract termination.

2. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) examples of their choice of completed projects or in progress of similar contracts in size and scope (minimum threshold: Projects where the principle objective was USP 797/800 renovations including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and controls, plumbing, fire protection, architectural, and electrical systems, clean rooms and negative/positive pressure systems within the United States, with a total contract value exceeding $1,000,000). In describing the construction experience, provide the following information:

a. Project title, location and brief description of the project and contracting method (design build, design bid construct, CM at risk, Turnkey, etc).

b. Project owner and name and telephone number of owner’s contact person.

c. Indicate your firm’s role as a prime contractor or subcontractor, etc.

d. Project Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors and name and telephone number of contact person(s).

e. Project Statistics including start and completion dates (original vs. actual) for design and construction; cost (with brief explanation of what is included in the cost); square footage; and any awards (prizes) received.

f. Please use the Corporate Experience Form (Solicitation Attachment B) included with the solicitation to provide the requested information for Experience.

g. Confirmation that the prime contractor and subcontractors are licensed for the work being performed in the state where the project is located, where specified, or otherwise in the state from which the contractor or subcontractor originates. Work requiring license in the State of Virginia includes all Contractors, HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical work and Asbestos/lead Project Monitoring.

Factor III – Key Personnel Offers will be evaluated on the Offeror’s ability to provide adequate staff to manage and complete the project within the period of performance specified.

Evaluators shall assign a rating based on the minimum requirements stated below.

Types of Rating Methods

Adjectival

of this project. Risk of unsuccessful performance is extremely low.

low.

project.

1. CRITERIA: Offeror must provide an organizational chart identifying key on-site personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in size and scope (multidiscipline construction projects with a minimum threshold value of $1,000,000) to the requirement being solicited. The key personnel required for this contract are identified in Attachment I Statement of Requirements.

2. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides:

a. An organizational block identifying on-site key personnel associated with this requirement to include:

i. Each individual’s name, title, duty, years of experience and experience level relating to similar contracts in size and scope (multidiscipline design and construction projects with a minimum threshold value of $1,000,000) and experience level with USP 787/800 standards.

ii. Narratives for the key personnel identified in the SOR experience for projects of similar size and scope (multidiscipline design and construction projects with a minimum threshold value of $1,000,000), showing project history with these key personnel in relations to the project’s description. The Quality Control Manager and the Safety Manager may be the same individual as long as they meet both specifications requirements.

FACTOR IV – CAPABILITY TO PERFORM

Offers will be evaluated to determine if the offeror has ability to provide the required bonds for this project.

Evaluators shall assign a rating based on the minimum requirements stated below.

Types of Rating Methods

Adjectival

1. CRITERIA: Offeror must provide proof that is able to obtain bonds up to $5 million.

2. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror provides:

a. A document showing proof of bond or capability to acquire bond upon award up to a value of $5,000,000.

b. Describe experience in successfully delivering projects per performance schedule, and successfully completing multiple projects with similar delivery dates.

c. Indicate the firms’ present workload and the availability of the project team (including sub-consultants) for the specified contract performance period.

Phase II:

FACTOR I – TECHNICAL SOLUTION

The VA will evaluate to help determine that the Offeror understands the project and can perform all of the required elements. The technical solution will be evaluated for inclusion of the technical areas listed in the criteria. The VA will evaluate an Offeror’s specific detail in each of the technical areas regarding design and constructability of design. The Offeror’s narrative should provide enough detail to demonstrate that the scope and complexity of the project requirements are understood and will be successfully completed.

Types of Rating Methods

Adjectival

1. CRITERIA: Offeror must provide a technical solution that meets the requirements set forth in the Specifications. The solution shall show the methodology of completing the design and construction.

2. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standards of acceptability are met when the Offeror provides:

a. A detailed description of the design and construction methodology. The proposal provides information that effectively addresses the internal processes to identify and prevent errors and delays in design and construction. The approach shall also clearly address Offeror’s approach to monitor corrective actions ensuring successful and timely problem resolution. The detailed description shall identify how the offeror will meet the minimum requirements of the Specifications. The description shall include the Offeror’s method for identifying subcontractors to meet the requirements.

FACTOR II – PROJECT SCHEDULE

The VA will evaluate and use as an aid to help determine that the Offeror understands and can perform all of the required elements to complete the project in the time frame specified with limited impact, to the greatest extent possible, to the Medical Center.

Types of Rating Methods

Adjectival

3. CRITERIA: Offeror must provide a plan to create and implement a schedule that meets the requirements. The plan shall identify major dates as per the statement of work and their interdependencies. A finalized, more detailed schedule will be required to be submitted and approved after contract award, which include the identification of all contract and schedule milestones.

4. MINIMUM STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY: The minimum standards of acceptability are met when the Offeror provides:

b. A detailed description or graphic of the design and construction schedule, including a chart showing lines of interdependencies meeting the scope of work period of performance. The proposal provides a schedule that effectively addresses the internal processes to identify and prevent delays in design and construction. The approach shall also clearly address Offeror’s approach to monitor corrective actions ensuring successful and timely problem resolution. The detailed schedule shall identify how the offeror will meet the minimum requirements of the Specifications. The schedule shall include the Offeror’s method for identifying subcontractors to meet the schedule requirements.

FACTOR III – PRICE

Finally, offers that are deemed technically acceptable and assigned a Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness of price. The Offeror’s price proposal will be submitted in a separate volume. No price information is to be included in the technical sections of the proposal. Price will not receive a technical rating.

A. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by reviewing the total price offered for Proposal Item 1 (Base Proposal Item). The Government will use the committed funds amount as the control amount for price evaluation. The control amount will not be made publicly available during evaluation and selection, due to the use of FAR Part 15 procedures, as it represents both the committed funds amount and the Government Estimate. The Government Estimate is source selection sensitive information and its release during evaluation and selection would negatively affect later negotiations, if held (see FAR 36.203(c)).

B. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (Ref: FAR 52.215-1 and Except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and past performance. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, 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.

C. Offers that are not technically acceptable cannot be selected, regardless of price.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 For Official Use Only