VA244-17-R-1057-00001003.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA

MATOC Seed Project

Coatesville Veterans Affairs Medical Center (CVAMC) Flooring Replacement Phase 1 Project # 542-18-107

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Overview.

1.1 The intent of this solicitation is to select a contractor to provide professional construction services per the Statement of Work (SOW), drawings, and specification for MATOC Seed Project:

Flooring Replacement Phase 1 Project # 542-18-107

1.2 The Government intends to use the “Best Value” tradeoff process source selection approach in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. Award will be made to the responsive, responsible offeror whose offer, in conformance with this solicitation, results in the best value to the Government, price plus other factors considered. The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed price task order to the responsive, responsible offerors whom the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers.

2. Submittal of offers.

2.1 Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals, so that a minimum of time and monies will have been expended in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the offeror's experience, technical approach, and management capabilities to successfully complete the project. Proposals should follow in the order of sequence set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP). Information provided out of sequence may not be evaluated and may result in the offeror's disqualification from award.

Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums. Innovative, creative or cost-saving proposals that meet or exceed the requirements should be clearly noted and justified in the proposal.

2.2 Offerors must comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal;

proposals that do not comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposal may be considered non-responsive and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

2.3 All proposal materials shall be submitted in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below.

Volume Ia: Sections 1 – 2

Volume I: Sections 1-2 shall be submitted in one (1) original and one (1) compact disk (CD) to the Contracting Officer. Must be typed using 11- point Times New Roman font. Packages that are handwritten will not be evaluated. Failure to place the required submission information under the appropriate tab (factor or sub factor) and format may result in a lower rating if the evaluators cannot readily find the appropriate information.

Volume IIa: Section 3

Volume IIa: Section 3 shall be submitted as one original only, and one (1) compact disk (CD) and shall be placed in a separate envelope, included in the proposal package.

2.4 All proposals shall be submitted to:

Mike White, Contract Officer

Hand-Carried Address:

Wilmington VA Medical Center 20 Montchanin Rd Contracting Office, Rm 116 Greenville, DE 19807

Mailing Address:

Wilmington VA Medical Center 20 Montchanin Rd Contracting Office, Rm 116 Greenville, DE 19807

3. Proposal Evaluation Process.

3.1 A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Department of Veterans Affairs will evaluate the proposals. SSEB may also include Architect and Engineering firm non-voting members. The identities of the SSEB personnel are confidential, and any attempt by the offerors to contact these individuals is prohibited. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal and any subsequent discussions, if necessary, as well as information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of proposals will be conducted in strict confidence in that technical/quality proposals are reviewed and rated without knowledge of the price offered. During deliberation, the number and identities of offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other offerors. Proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described herein, and award will be made to the responsive, responsible offerors whose offer in conformance with this solicitation, results in the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

3.2 The evaluation process essentially consists of two parts: Technical/Past Performance Evaluation and Price Evaluation.

3.2.1 Technical/Past Performance Evaluation: Proposals will be evaluated against the Evaluation Factors and Criteria identified in Par. 4.1 and Pars. 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.

3.2.3 Price Evaluation: The CO will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation. The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality evaluation.

NOTE: Price/Technical Trade-off Analysis: After all above evaluations are complete, the SSEB will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and weigh against the prices. Statement of Work (SOW) identifies project scope. The SSEB will then consider all factors to select the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

4.1 Evaluation Factors

4.1.1 Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Factors identified below.

Technical Approach and Past Performance are equal and when combined are significantly more important than Price.

Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Approach Evaluation Factor 2 – Past Performance Evaluation Factor 3 – Price

4.1.2. As demonstrated in their proposals, Offerors shall be evaluated in terms of the Offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the project’s requirements as identified in the SOW, and those proposals demonstrating an ability to exceed specified requirements may be rated higher in those areas than proposals demonstrating only the ability to meet requirements. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government intends to make award to an Offeror submitting a conforming proposal without discussions, if deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

4.2 Volume Ia - Technical Proposal (Three-Ring Binder)

Section 1 Technical Approach 1st

Section 2 Past Performance 2nd

4.3 Volume IIa - Price Proposal

Section 3 Shall be submitted as an original only, and shall be placed in a separate envelope, included in the proposal package.

5.0 Volume Ia - Technical Proposal

5.1 Section 1 – Technical Approach

5.1.1 Submission Requirements

A. Proposed team. Provide a narrative of the following elements, not to exceed 5 pages (front and back side use of a single page will count as 2 pages) which will be rated equally.

1) Diagram or organization chart showing the Prime contractor, proposed subcontracts tasked with the following major functional areas.

a. Flooring

b. removal of existing sub-flooring,

c. carpet removal as well as replacing the sub-flooring,

d. installing new interlocking Luxury Vinyl Tile (LVT) plank flooring and cove bases

2) Offeror’s QC policy and detailed Quality Control Plan

3) Draft Project Schedule

B. Specialized Experience - Team’s experience on projects with similar skills(flooring, floor tiles, carpet, sub-flooring, new interlocking LVT plank flooring)

5.1.2 Evaluation Criteria

Narrative

1) The Narrative will be evaluated for completeness, thoroughness, and functionality.

Pages beyond the limited specified in paragraph 5.1.1 A, will not be read or evaluated.

5.2 Section 2 – Past Performance

5.2.1 Submission Requirements: Offeror Past Performance

The VA requests one construction Flooring project that best illustrate contractors prime and subcontractor’s team’s qualifications. The document should be written to show the team’s construction performance, magnitude between $100,000 to $600,000 construction costs within the last 3 years. The past performance section shall not exceed 1 page. Projects that are most current will have more weight than older projects. Project description, at a minimum the description should include scope, size-square footage, identify any safety issues, schedule adherence and timeliness, and cost of the project and can include photographs.

1) Include customer’s point of contact (name, title, and phone number). The Technical Evaluation Team may contact the POC for additional information, if necessary.

2) The Government may also use other tools including but not limited to CPARS/PPIRS, Vet Biz, Experian, and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) to gather past performance documentation.

5.3 Section 3 Volume IIa - Price Information -

5.3.1 Submission Requirements

The Offeror shall submit detailed pricing using ATTACHMENT 7 MATOC Price Schedule Seed Project with separate labor and material prices for each area identified in the SOW. Price Schedule shall include breakdown by the following:

Building 1 Executive Suite Demolition Labor Category (demo, carpenter, laborer, flooring) Material Detail (cove base, LVP, material)

Building 3 Hallways Demolition Labor Category (demo, carpenter, laborer, flooring)

Material Detail (cove base, LVP, material)

Building 5 Volunteer Services Basement Demolition Labor Category (demo, carpenter, laborer, flooring) Material Detail (cove base, LVP, material)

Building 6 Room B12 Basement Demolition Labor Category (demo, carpenter, laborer, flooring) Material Detail (cove base, LVP, material)

Building 38 Second Floor Hallways Demolition Labor Category (demo, carpenter, laborer, flooring) Material Detail (cove base, LVP, material)

Building 39 Room B06 Basement Demolition Labor Category (demo, carpenter, laborer, flooring) Material Detail (cove base, LVP, material)

5.3.2 Evaluation Criteria

This factor evaluates the Price to provide an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed pricing by the offeror. Pricing will be evaluated by the SSEB to determine whether or not the proposal complies in accordance with “Reasonableness” as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price will be determined on the Best Value to the Government. The SSEB will use the following definitions when making their determination:

Price Fair and Reasonable:

Reasonableness of an offeror’s proposal is evaluated through price analysis techniques as described in “FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1). For Price to be reasonable, the it must represent a price that provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market, (market conditions may be evidenced by other competitive proposals), technical and functional capabilities of the offeror.

52.236-1-- Performance of Work by the Contractor.

As prescribed in 36.501(b), insert the following clause. [Complete the clause by inserting the appropriate percentage consistent with the complexity and magnitude of the work and customary or necessary specialty subcontracting (see 36.501(a)).]

Performance of Work by the Contractor (Apr 1984)

The Contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivalent to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total amount of work to be performed under the contract. This percentage may be reduced by a supplemental agreement to this contract if, during performing the work, the Contractor requests a reduction and the Contracting Officer determines that the reduction would be to the advantage of the Government.

(End of Clause) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/Regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/Far/36.htm#P186_25261