Atch___1_16R0006_SECTION_L_ _M.pdf

SP470216R0006 Page 1

Attachment # 1 Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 For Official Use Only

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO

OFFERORS

DOCUMENTATION OF TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY. Proposals received in response to this solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with procedures outlined in Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15.101-2 for the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Offer.

The following significant Evaluation Factors will be used as the basis for determining Technical

Acceptability: Past Performance; Technical Construction Capability; and Technical Qualifications of

Proposed Staffing.

NOTE: There is a realistic possibility that some offerors may choose to submit the same construction project as a qualifying example for both the past performance and the technical experience evaluation factors. This is not prohibited, but the supporting documentation must demonstrate that the submitted projects absolutely do comply with the specific minimal requirements, identified below, for each separate evaluation factor.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE.

To be Technically Acceptable, Offerors should identify no less than ONE (1), and no more than

THREE (3), previously-awarded, construction contracts, which were issued by either: Federal, State, or Local Government Agencies; and/or Private Organizations. To be evaluated as Relevant

Past Performance, the construction contracts submitted by offerors must involve:

● Construction work as a prime contractor;

● A dollar magnitude equal to, or greater than $100,000.00;

● Work that was 100% completed within a time period of no more than TWO (2) years prior to the date of submitting this proposal. If the work is still incomplete, or was completed more than two years prior to the date of submitting this proposal, it will not be deemed relevant.

For each of the submitted Past Performance contracts, provide the following information:

(a) The name of the construction contract, and the contract ID number;

(b) The name of the contracting agency or organization the contract was awarded by;

(c) The date of the construction contract award, and the contract award amount in dollars;

(d) The date of the construction contract completion, and the final contract amount, in dollars;

(e) A brief description of the construction contract scope of work; and

(f) Identification of at least one point-of-contact at the organization that awarded the submitted contract, including: the name of the point-of-contact; their current mailing address; phone number; and email address

(if applicable).

(g) If applicable per FAR 15.302(a)(2)(ii) provide information on problems encountered on the submitted contracts and include the corrective actions.

SP470216R0006 Page 2

For Official Use Only

SPECIAL NOTE for Offerors That May Lack Past Performance Information: In accordance with FAR Part 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror that is without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable” (DOD Source Selection Guide, Section A.2.1.2.).

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION CAPABILITY.

To be technically acceptable the contractor must provide a project plan to demonstrate that they are capable of completing all work in accordance with the Statement of Work and project drawings. The plan must identify all work that can be accomplished with in-house resources and demonstrate that they are capable of obtaining any project requirements that cannot be self-performed.

FACTOR 3. TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS OF PROPOSED STAFFING.

To be Technically Acceptable, qualified offerors must provide information regarding the technical qualifications of the proposed project staff, to include the individuals who will be responsible for

Project Management, Quality Control, and Safety Compliance.

(a) Project Management;

(b) Quality Control; and

(c) Safety Compliance.

CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS: This project requires the use of specialized skills and equipment. The general contractor and all key sub-contractors shall have a minimum five (5) years’ experience in all facets of construction projects under the assigned NAICS code. Offerors must provide information regarding the technical qualifications of the proposed project staff, to include the individuals who will be responsible for Project Management, Quality Control Safety Compliance.

All contractors shall submit the following with their proposal:

● A written project plan to demonstrate that the contractor understands and is capable of completing all work in accordance with the Statement of Work and project drawings. The plan must identify all work that can be accomplished with in-house resources and demonstrate that they are capable of obtaining any project requirements that cannot be self-performed.

● Written qualification statement for the individual who will be functioning as the project manager, demonstrating 3 years of project management experience for projects similar in nature to work described in the statement of work.

● Written qualifications statement for the individual who will be responsible for quality control demonstrating 3 years of quality control experience for projects similar in nature to work described in the statement of work.

● Written qualifications statement for the individual who will be responsible for safety demonstrating 3 years of safety experience for projects similar in nature to work described in the statement of work. This individual must document a minimum of 40 hours of OSHA safety training.

● Written work experience, and references for projects satisfactorily completed within the last three years of similar size and scope.

SP470216R0006 Page 3

For Official Use Only

The written qualifications statement shall be certified and signed by a principle of the offeror. Offerors need only submit a brief resume of each key individual. This will be evaluated to determine if they have the appropriate technical training, certifications, if required, and previous construction experience to meet the technical requirements of a project of this nature. If any of the submitted individuals will perform more than one of the listed functions, this is acceptable as long as the submitted documentation identifies any and all functions the given individual will be performing.

BASIS OF AWARD.

The Government will make the award based on the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. Note that offers that are not technically acceptable cannot be selected, regardless of price.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Basis for Award and Summary Evaluation Factors.

(1) Proposals will first be evaluated on the basis of technical acceptability, which will be determined by evaluating both the Technical and Past Performance factors. The evaluation factors are: Technical Construction Capability, Technical Qualifications of Proposed

Staffing, Past Performance, and Price.

(2) The technical non-price factors are Technical Construction Capability and Technical

Qualifications of Proposed Staffing. These factors address the contractor’s capability and provide evidence that they can perform the requirements described in the SOW.

(3) Past Performance information will be provided by the Contractors to show their history of successfully accomplishing SOW tasks and to determine the quality of their relevant past performance. Assessment for this area will be subjective based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Evaluation will investigate information furnished by the contractor to ensure they have consistently demonstrated a commitment to administration, customer satisfaction, timely delivery, and quality goods and services in prior contracts of similar scope and complexity. This is a matter of judgment and will be a subjective assessment based on investigative findings.

(4) Only the proposals found to be technically acceptable will be further evaluated for award.

This means a proposal is “acceptable” for all factors.

(5) Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness.

(6) Contract Award will be made to the responsible vendor that offers the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal.

Evaluation factors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant RFP requirements. They are the uniform baseline against which each offeror’s proposal is evaluated

SP470216R0006 Page 4

For Official Use Only allowing the Government to make a determination of acceptability. The THREE (3) evaluation factors for determination of technical acceptability consist of:

1. Past Performance;

2. Technical Construction Capability and

3. Technical Qualifications of Proposed Staffing.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE. Past Performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA selection process.

(1) Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The vendor shall identify its past performance information as requested in the solicitation. The basis of this assessment is from two aspects: 1) Recency and Relevancy and 2)

Quality of Historical Contracts.

(2) Past Performance Evaluation Rating. Past Performance will be rated on an

“acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table 1.

Table 1. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable (A) Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

See Note Below.

Unacceptable (U) Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In accordance with FAR Part 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror that is without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable” (DOD Source

Selection Guide, Section A.2.1.2.).

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION CAPABILITY

The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance.

More than one “technical” factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFP. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The evaluation team shall evaluate the offeror’s proposal against the minimum requirements established by the RFP to

SP470216R0006 Page 5

For Official Use Only determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable (A) Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 3: TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS OF PROPOSED STAFFING

The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance.

More than one “technical” factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFP. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The evaluation team shall evaluate the offeror’s proposal against the minimum requirements established by the RFP to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 3.

Table 3. Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable (A) Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.