Section M 12 Mar.docx

ATTACHMENT J

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR SELECTION

Task order (TO) selection procedures will be used to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision for ESPC services at a firm fixed price. In accordance with the down selection process of the DOE ESPC IDIQ basic contract, paragraph H.3.1, all sixteen Energy Service Companies (ESCO) will be given an opportunity to submit a package acknowledging interest in the DeCA requirement.

Proposals will be evaluated using three factors: 1) Technical Capability, 2) Past Performance and 3) Cost/Price. There are five subfactors under the Technical Capability: 1) Proposed Scope of Work, 2) Energy Savings Achievement, 3) M&V Approach, 4) Commissioning Requirements, and 5) Quality Control Approach. Technical capability subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. Each technical capability subfactor of Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, Past Performance. When the non-cost factor and subfactors are combined, they are significantly more important than Factor 3, Cost/Price. All proposals will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria stated in this document.

The selection will focus on each ESCO’s ability to perform previous projects of this magnitude, its illustration of how they plan to achieve DeCA’s energy conservation and renewable goals and its illustration of technical expertise in energy projects of similar size and scope. The focus of the selection will be the likeliness of successfully performing a project of this magnitude. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) shall adhere to all evaluation criteria stated herein during the evaluation of proposals.

After evaluation of offers against the factors and subfactors is accomplished, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will select a single ESCO to move forward for a formal Preliminary Assessment (PA). Prior to selection, ESCOs must affirmatively demonstrate responsibility, including, when necessary, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors. In accordance with FAR 9.103, the Contracting Officer shall make an affirmative determination of responsibility prior to contract award. FAR 9.104-1 defines the general standards to which a prospective contractor must comply in order to be clearly identified as responsible.

The resultant TO may be awarded to the responsible contractor that provides the best value based on the technical criteria and its approach and methodology for achieving energy conservation and renewable efforts for DeCA at the most economical and reasonable cost for the same energy conservation measures. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or higher rated past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all selection criteria described below.

B. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one resultant TO for this requirement. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a task order at all.

C. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal that is determined 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 project. ESCO shall reference their basic DOE IDIQ contract, paragraph H.6.2, regarding reimbursement of any proposal preparation costs.

D. CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an ESCO’s proposal fails to meet the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated and given no further consideration for selection.

E. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FROM USE OF GFP

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage from an offeror’s proposed use of Government Furnished Property (GFP).

F. EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Offers:

The evaluation of offers will be based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors listed below:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 4 – Commissioning Requirements Subfactor 5 - Quality Control Approach

2. Order of Importance:

There are five subfactors under the Technical Capability: 1) Proposed Scope of Work, 2) Energy Savings Achievement, 3) M&V Approach, 4) Commissioning Requirements, and 5) Quality Control Approach. Technical capability subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. Each technical capability subfactor of Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, Past Performance. When the non-cost factor and subfactors are combined, they are significantly more important than Factor 3, Cost/Price.

3. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government evaluation teams will evaluate the Technical Capability, Past Performance and Cost/Price simultaneously to facilitate an expeditious selection process. The results of proposal evaluations conducted by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will culminate into a Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

3.1 Factor 1 – Technical Capability

In this factor, the offeror will demonstrate their company’s ability to design a project that best meets the needs of energy conservation as defined in this Notice. Each subfactor will receive two separate and distinct ratings:

· a technical rating that reflects the degree to which the technical capability factor or subfactor exceeds, meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements; and

· a risk rating that assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

These two ratings are presented together and are of equal impact for the rating for each Technical Capability subfactor. As this acquisition establishes subfactors for the Technical Capability factor, the ratings are done at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. The technical ratings assessed for subfactors 1, 3, 4 and 5 will be from Table 3 below and subfactor 2 shall be assessed rating from Table 4. All five Technical Capability subfactors shall be assessed a risk rating from Table 5.

Subfactor 1 – Proposed Scope of Work

Subfactor 2 – Energy Savings Achievement The proposed sample project submitted in response to the Notice of Opportunity shall also be given a rating assessing how well the ESCO’s proposed approach achieves the energy conservation and renewable goals, and efficiently and effectively represents the greatest level of savings using a realistic and achievable strategy for DeCA. The ESCO must provide all energy savings proposed for the sample project on a Schedule TO-4, Task Order Performance Period First Year Estimated Annual Cost Savings by Energy Conservation Measure and Technology Category, per the DOE ESPC basic IDIQ contract. The proposed ECMs shall be listed on Schedule TO-4 in their order of importance. The requirements of this subfactor are met when the ESCO’s proposed project achieves more than 50% of the goals identified in Table 2 of the Notice of Opportunity. The calculation that will be used in this assessment is as follows:

Sample project energy savings / sample commissary square footage = average energy savings/sf

Average energy savings/sf X total DeCA square footage = proposed total project savings

Unless a proposed ECM is unlikely to be replicated throughout the DeCA Eastern Region, the proposed energy savings shall be assumed to be proportional to the sample commissary square footage and will be scaled based on the entire population for evaluation purposes. The Government will solely determine the likeliness of replication. As this is for evaluation purposes only, the Government is not discouraging any technical category cited in the basic ESPC IDIQ contract. (Note: Technical ratings from Table 4 shall be used in the assessment of subfactor 2, only.)

Subfactor 3 – M&V Approach The criteria is met when the ESCO clearly illustrates the proposed M&V methodology appropriate for each ECM proposed in subfactor 1 above in accordance with the Federal Energy Management Program M&V guidelines. Contractors are advised that simply stating an intention of using a specific M&V option, i.e. Option A, B, C or D, is not acceptable in satisfying this requirement. The discussion shall include at a minimum the following items:

(1) The methodology for defining the baseline to include identification of data to be collected, parameters to be measured, and timeframe and frequency of measurements.

(2) Proposed M&V Option to include description of calculation methodology, parameters to be measured, and timeframe and frequency of measurements. Identify which measured parameter(s) could result in a shortfall in savings and list responsible party.

Subfactor 4 – Commissioning Requirements:

The criteria is met when the ESCO provides a clearly articulated summary of their company commissioning plan for all ECMs proposed. If selected to pursue an Investment Grade Audit (IGA), ESCO shall maintain these proposed approaches in the IGA and ultimately task order award, if awarded, unless authorized to change by the Contracting Officer. The summary shall, at a minimum, include discussion of the following:

(1) Identify key elements of the commissioning plan and their associated timeline(s).

(2) Identify the standards or codes that will be followed during the testing and commissioning of the systems.

(3) Provide roles and responsibility of the parties who will conduct the commissioning.

(1) Discussion of the qualifications and responsibilities for the Quality Control Manager

(2) Identifies all duties and reporting responsibilities of the Quality Control Manager

(3) Clearly describes how consistent quality control management will be maintained at the different locations

(4) Identifies and discusses the significant characteristics of your Quality Control Plan that you feel make your Quality Control plan distinguishable in the industry.

Subfactor 1, 3, 4, and 5 shall be rated with the ratings defined in Tables 3 below:

TABLE 3 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Subfactor 2 shall be rated with the ratings defined in Tables 4 below:

TABLE 4 – ACHIEVEMENT OF GOALS ASSESSMENT

Technical Risk Assessment of technical risk rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. Assessment of a technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each of the technical subfactors will receive one of the technical risk ratings described in Table 5, Technical Risk Ratings, below.

TABLE 5 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

3.2 Factor 2 - Past Performance

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to successfully perform the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints as defined in the solicitation. The evaluation is based on recency, relevancy, and a demonstrated record of performance. The past performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments:

TABLE 6 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(Neutral) 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.

(i) Evaluation Process – The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet customer’s needs. The criteria is met when the ESCO provides a well-articulated narrative, no more than five pages, that describes five previous project performed in varied locations such as the project scope herein. At a minimum, the areas of past performance to be discussed shall include management, quality and quality control, knowledge and professionalism, problem resolution, adherence to schedules, working relationships, design capabilities, environmental awareness, and contract performance. The ESCO shall complete a separate Attachment D for each project discussed in the narrative.

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s past performance proposal submission and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and commercial sources as well as interviews with Government customers and commercial clients. It may also include interviews with any other sources known to the Government.

(ii) Recency Assessment - An assessment of the past performance information submitted will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the project’s construction effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this Notice of Opportunity. For projects which have not yet completed the construction to be considered eligible, construction must be at least 50% complete as of the date of issuance of the Notice of Opportunity. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated.

(iii) Relevancy Assessment - The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided or services performed under those contracts relate to the description of work in the Notice of Opportunity. A relevant contract is one that illustrates experience in developing, designing, implementing and funding an energy conservation effort at multiple locations.

TABLE 7 - RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

(iv) Performance Quality Assessment - The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS and commercial sources as well as interviews with Government customers and commercial clients. It may also include interviews with any other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 8 – PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

(v) Assigning Ratings - As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating identified in Table 6, above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the ESCO’s proposed energy conservation measures at multiple locations, 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 relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or none relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Any offer receiving a rating of “No Confidence” will not be considered for selection.

3.3 Factor 3 –Cost/Price

G. FURTHER EVALUATIONS.

One contractor will be selected to submit a Preliminary Assessment from the responses received to this Notice. However, the Government reserves the right to make no selection based on the evaluation of the responses received to the Notice of Opportunity. The selected ESCO shall submit a Preliminary Assessment as detailed in the DOE basic contract paragraph H.4, Preliminary Assessment Content Requirements for Task Orders, which sets out the merits, technical feasibility, and the level of projected energy savings, economics, and cost/price of the project. Upon acceptance of the Preliminary Assessment by the Government, the selected contractor may be issued a Notice of Intent to Award at which time that contractor will begin the Investment Grade Audit (IGA) process as described in paragraph H.5, Investment Grade Audit for Task Orders.

H. DISCUSSIONS

It is the Government’s intent to make a selection without discussion, however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions at any time it determines them to be necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their complete information and best terms initially. During the Preliminary Assessment and Investment Grade Audit phases of the project, the Government and the selected ESCO will participate in discussions.

I. NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all Notice requirements in accordance with the basic DOE ESPC IDIQ contract, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for selection. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the Notice and provide complete accompanying rationale.

Notice of Opportunity Defense Commissary Agency Attachment J (Section M)