Attachment_5_Evaluation_Criteria_and_Procedures_for_Award_TradeOff_Over 1M_8_Pages.doc

Attachment 5 Evaluation Criteria and Procedures for Award

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.

It is the intent of the Government to make award based upon initial offers, without further discussions or additional information. One firm-fixed price contract will be awarded to the firm submitting the proposal that a) conforms to the RFP, b) is considered to provide the best value offer in terms of the evaluation factors, including price and c) is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

2.

Offerors must submit information for the below criteria in sufficient detail to permit proper evaluation. Submittals must be in a format that follows the sequence of criteria set forth in the paragraphs below. Absence of information will be deemed as if no support for that factor is available. Submittals should be on 8½ x 11-inch paper, to the maximum extent practicable, and submitted in standard letter-size, loose-leaf binders.

3.

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of two criteria, TECHNICAL and PRICE. Award will be made to the offeror who proposes the combination of price and technical factors that represent the best value to the government based on the evaluation criteria listed below.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

4.

All technical factors, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price.

5.

Technical Evaluation Criteria: The technical criteria are as follows:

Factors

6.

Price Evaluation Criteria:

NOTE: SDVOSB Joint Venture Offeror shall submit evidence of verification by the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization’s (OSDBU) Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE).

EVALUATION PROCEDURES

7.

Technical Evaluation: Technical proposals will be evaluated by a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Veterans Administration. Pricing data will not be considered during this evaluation. Criteria for the technical evaluation are set forth elsewhere in the solicitation and will be the sole basis for determining the technical merit of proposals. The SSEB shall use the order of importance definitions and technical merit ratings described earlier in this section of the solicitation to perform their technical evaluation. To be considered for award, proposals must conform to the terms and conditions contained in the RFP. No proposal will be accepted that does not address all criteria specified in this solicitation or which includes stipulations or qualifying conditions unacceptable to the Government.

8.

Price Evaluation: Price is of secondary importance to the technical criteria. Pricing will be independently evaluated to determine reasonableness and to aid in the determination of the firm’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. Financial capacity and bonding ability will be verified.

9.

Selection and Award: Subject to provisions contained herein, award of a firm fixed-price contract shall be made to a single firm. The Government will select the best-value offer based on technical merit and price.

10.

Best Value Analysis. In determining the best value to the Government, the tradeoff process of evaluation will be utilized. The tradeoff process permits tradeoffs among price and technical factors, and allows the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. You are advised that greater consideration will be given to the evaluation of technical proposals rather than price. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. It is pointed out, however, that should technical competence between offerors be considered approximately the same, the cost or price could become more important in determining award.

11.

Selection and Award without Discussions: It is the intent of the Government to make award based upon initial offers, without further discussions or additional information. Therefore, initial proposals should be submitted based on the most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Do not assume there will be an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise proposals. If award is not made on initial offers, a competitive range will be established and discussions conducted as described below.

12.

Competitive Range: If it is not in the Government’s best interest to make award on initial offers, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of one or more offers and conduct discussions with those firms. When determining the competitive range, the Contracting Officer will consider the technical ratings and prices offered.

13.

Discussions: Discussions are usually conducted in writing, but may also be by telephone or in person. Discussions are tailored to each offeror’s proposal and are only conducted with offeror(s) in the competitive range. The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation criteria set forth in this solicitation. If a firm's proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from consideration for award during discussions, no further revisions to that firm's proposal will be accepted or considered. Discussions will culminate in a request for Final Proposal Revision, the date and time of which will be common to all remaining firms.

14.

After Discussions: Revisions to the proposals submitted during discussions, if any, will be evaluated by the SSEB and, if warranted, an adjustment made to the rating previously assigned. The Contracting Officer will then perform a best value analysis based on the final prices and technical proposals.

15.

Debriefings: Upon written request, unsuccessful firms will be debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award in accordance with FAR 15.505 and FAR 15.506.

16.

Proposal Expenses and Pre-Contract Costs: This solicitation does not commit the Government to pay costs incurred in preparation and submission of initial and subsequent proposals or for other costs incurred prior to award of a formal contract.

17.

Release of Information: After receipt of proposals and until contract award, source selection information will not be furnished to any firm.

18.

Evaluation Standards. Evaluation criteria will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions.

Outstanding: Information submitted demonstrates offeror’s potential to significantly exceed performance or capability standards. The offeror has clearly demonstrated an understanding of all aspects of the requirements to the extent that timely and the highest quality performance are anticipated. Has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government. The offeror convincingly demonstrated that the RFP requirements have been analyzed, evaluated, and synthesized into approaches, plans, and techniques that, when implemented, should result in outstanding, effective, efficient, and economical performance under the contract. Significantly exceeds most or all solicitation requirements. Very High Probability of Success.

Above Average: Information submitted demonstrates offeror’s potential to exceed performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. The areas in which the offeror exceeds the requirements are anticipated to result in a high level of efficiency or productivity or quality. The submittal contains excellent features that will likely produce results very beneficial to the Government. Fully meets all RFP requirements and significantly exceeds many of the RFP requirements. Disadvantages are minimal. High Probability of Success.

Satisfactory: Information submitted demonstrates offeror’s potential to meet performance or capability standards. An acceptable solution is provided. Either meets all RFP requirements for the factor or contains weaknesses in some areas that are offset by strengths in other areas. A rating of “Satisfactory” indicates that, in terms of the specific factor (or sub-factor), the offeror has a reasonable probability of success, as there is sufficient confidence that a fully compliant level of performance will be achieved. The proposal demonstrates an adequate understanding of the scope and depth of the RFP requirements. No significant advantages or disadvantages. Equates to neutral. Reasonable Probability of Success.

Marginal: The submittal is not adequately responsive or does not address the specific factor. The offeror’s interpretation of the Government’s requirements is so superficial, incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, or incorrect as to be considered deficient. Proposal does not meet some of the minimum requirements. The assignment of a rating within the bounds of “Marginal” indicates that mandatory corrective action would be required to prevent significant deficiencies from affecting the overall project. The offeror’s plans or approach will likely result in questionable quality of performance, which represents a moderate level of risk to the Government. Low probability of success although the submittal has a reasonable chance of becoming at least acceptable. Significant disadvantages. Low Probability of Success.

Unsatisfactory: Fails to meet performance or capability standards. Unacceptable. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the submittal. There is no reasonable expectation that acceptable performance would be achieved. The proposal contains many deficiencies and/or gross omissions; fails to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling much of the Government’s requirements; and/or fails to meet most or all of the minimum requirements. Very significant disadvantages. Very Low Probability of Success.

19.

Definitions of Strength, Weakness and Deficiency.

Strength: A substantive aspect, attribute, or specific item in the proposal that exceeds the solicitation requirements and enhances the probability of successful contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (i.e., meets the RFP requirements, but may have an impact on schedule or quality requirements). A weakness need not be corrected for a proposal to be considered for award, but may affect the offeror’s rating.

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness need not be corrected for a proposal to be considered for award, but will affect the offeror’s rating.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet the Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of contract performance at an unacceptable level. A deficiency must be corrected for a proposal to be considered for award.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear, either because there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies indicate that there may be an error, omission or mistake in the offer.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Technical Evaluation Criteria: The technical criteria are as follows:

Recent - Project examples within the last 5 years.

Relevancy - “Relevant” is defined as projects similar to the project in this solicitation in scope, magnitude and complexity and that have a logical connection with the requirements of this RFP.

Three types of experience areas that are considered especially relevant include: 1) Similar hospital and medical renovation projects 2) High-rise/multi-story construction projects 3) Multiple Elevator Projects. This does create a required experience which would restrict competition but does allow the government to provide higher technical ratings for those with acceptable specific experience to the requirement.

VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL

FACTOR 1: CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE OF THE PRIME.

Submittal Requirements:

For Construction Experience, the Offeror should submit up to five (5) project examples demonstrating relevant experience. Only recent and relevant projects currently in progress or completed within the above recent and relevant guidelines shall be submitted. In addition, only those projects for which the Offeror was the Prime Contractor should be submitted. Offerors should explain how the information provided is relevant to the proposed acquisition and the projects selected should clearly demonstrate the construction capabilities of the Offeror. In addition, the Offeror must clearly identify for which, if any, of the three especially relevant experience area(s) each project example pertains (e.g., Project A may qualify and be listed for similar hospital and medical renovation projects and high-rise/multi-story construction projects while Project B may qualify and be listed only for multiple elevator projects, etc.).

Sample as follows:

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EXPERIENCE MATRIX

PROJECT TITLE

PROJECT A

PROJECT B

PROJECT C (etc.)

Use attached spreadsheet format to provide specific project experience information on the relevant projects listed under Tab "Firm Experience" and Relevant Experience Evaluation Method:

This factor will be evaluated for the quality of experience demonstrated. Offerors who demonstrate a higher degree of construction experience in the especially relevant experience areas as stated above may be evaluated more favorably.

21. FACTOR 2: PROJECT MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE

Submittal Requirements:

Provide a comprehensive Project Management Narrative, of no more than three pages in length, developed specifically for the entire scope of this construction contract. As a minimum, the narrative should address/discuss the following:

(a) Management approach used to construct all facilities and project features within the proposed schedule, to include: schedule development and management, fast-track construction techniques, managing multiple project sites simultaneously.

(b) Explanation of the total project team management approach for the construction team, to include: partnering/coordination with subcontractors, core construction team, installation support agencies and concurrent construction activity by others.

(d) Explanation of how the following construction activities will be managed for thorough and timely execution: Quality Control, submittals, facility commissioning, acceptance, and turnover.

(e) Provide details of a full and comprehensive elevator repair and maintenance service of the Preventive Maintenance Program to be used during the renovation and the following warranty period.

(f) Provide information on reaction to emergency repair services to include response time, steps that may be required to diagnose and repair, and established availability of technicians and equipment/tools. Explain the capability to provide trained and qualified on-site service and live factory service technical support 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year. Provide contact information for live factory service. The controller vendor must be able to provide immediate technical support and overnight mail any parts necessary for maintenance. Detail the proximity of parts warehouse and service office.

Evaluation Method:

A thorough and reasonable Project Management Narrative suitable for the scope and complexity of this project will be given greater consideration. Betterments of value to the Government may receive additional consideration.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE OF THE PRIME

Submission Requirements:

a.

In accordance with FAR 42.1503(g), past performance will be evaluated using the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). If no relevant past performance history is available for your DUNs number, you may choose to utilize the attached Past Performance Questionnaire and it may be used exclusively for evaluation. Government databases will be checked and previous customers and/or evaluators may be contacted as references or verification of performance. A lack of past performance information will result in a neutral rating during evaluations.

b.

All performance ratings shall be considered for contracts ongoing or completed within the past five (5) years from the date proposals are due. All projects submitted on a Past Performance Questionnaire must be at least 75% complete or must have been completed within the past five (5) years from the date proposals are due. Further instructions are found at the top of the Past Performance Questionnaires.

c.

Offeror’s proposals shall include a list of all customers (including current point of contact, phone number, and electronic address) to whom a Past Performance Questionnaire was provided. The Government will only evaluate up to five (5) Past Performance Questionnaires. To be considered, the Questionnaires must be completed by the customers and mailed, emailed, hand-delivered, or faxed directly by the Customer to POC provided in solicitation number VA263-15-R-0004 for receipt no later than the time and date proposals are due. Questionnaires submitted directly by Offerors WILL NOT be considered. Please ensure envelopes containing Questionnaires submitted to this office do not contain the return address of the offeror's firm.

Evaluation Method:

The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror’s past performance. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of the firms’ performance history including specific question ratings of the past performance vs. overall rating; and, may attribute more significance to projects that demonstrate specific relevant experience to this project.

FACTOR 4: PROJECT SCHEDULE

Submittal Requirements:

The offeror shall develop a proposed construction schedule demonstrating the technical approach for construction of this project. The proposed schedule shall indicate the starting and completion times of all major elements of work beginning with the notice to proceed on the base contract items and indicating calendar days to completion of all options. The schedule shall indicate sequences proposed to accomplish each work element and appropriate interdependencies between various work elements. The proposed schedule should demonstrate the critical path items and how they will be accomplished given the climate and weather sensitive work of this project. The schedule shall be as complete, reasonable, and realistic as possible, demonstrating the offeror’s ability to propose a schedule that identifies all major elements of work for this project, meets the Government’s requirements, and is obtainable. For purposes of the proposal submittal, assume a Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of May 1, 2015.

Evaluation Method:

Evaluation will be based on the offeror’s ability to develop a schedule that addresses the major work elements and critical path for this project, as well as the offeror’s ability to present an approach that is complete, reasonable, and realistic. Proposed schedules that reflect a clear understanding of the complexity of this project based on the critical project factors will be evaluated more favorably. Note: The Government reserves the right to incorporate the successful offeror’s schedule for the entire project into the contract at time of award.

**NOTE** - The proposed contract duration submitted at proposal time on the Price Schedule Sheet is contractually binding.

VOLUME 2 - PRICE PROPOSAL

FACTOR 1 – PRICE - CONTRACT LINE ITEM SCHEDULE

Submission Requirements:

1.

Submit the properly filled out CLIN Schedule, containing proposed line item and total pricing, as well as the proposed contract duration.

2.

Supplemental Price Breakdown. If deemed necessary to evaluate the price proposals, the Government’s will request a price breakdown of the Contract Line items in a sealed envelope marked “Price Breakdown Information”, in Excel format. The Government will provide details on where and how to send the breakdown. This information will not be needed sooner than three working days after the proposal submission due date. This information may be required for the initial proposal and, if requested, for any revised proposals. This information is not an opportunity for an offeror to revise its non-price or price proposal.

Evaluation Criteria:

1.

Price will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis. The price evaluation will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices. Offerors are cautioned to distribute direct costs, such as material, labor, equipment, subcontracts, etc. and to evenly distribute indirect costs, such as job overhead, home office overhead, bond, etc., to the appropriate contract line items. Both parties shall presume that field overhead costs through the proposed contract duration are inclusive in the offered price for the contract.

2.

If deemed necessary, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price evaluations described above.

3.

Award cannot be made for project cost for design and construction exceeding the cost limitation, if applicable, described herein.

A.

SELF-PERFORMED WORK

Submission Requirements:

i.

The Offeror shall confirm that it understands and that it shall perform the amount of work required to be self-performed, in accordance with the appropriate clause that applies to the contract performance.

Evaluation Requirements:

This is a GO/NO-GO requirement. In order to assure adequate interest in and supervision of all work, the Contractor shall be required to perform a significant part of the contract with its own forces. This public policy is expressed in various Statutes, as well as in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and in the Small Business Administration Code of Federal Regulations. The Offeror must confirm that it understands the amount of work performed, based on the status of the offeror, and that it will self-perform the required amount of work with its own forces. For purposes of these clauses, work that is performed off-site, such as factory fabrication or factory assembly of modules, or direct design work, may also be taken into account as self-performed work.

B.

SAFETY OR ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS AND EXPERIENCE MODIFICATION RATE (EMR)

All Offerors shall submit the following information pertaining to their past Safety and Environmental record. The information shall contain, at a minimum, a certification that the offeror has no more than three (3) serious, or one (1) repeat or one (1) willful OSHA or any EPA violation(s) in the past three years.

ii.

All Offerors shall submit information regarding their current Experience Modification Rate (EMR) equal to or less than 1.0. This information shall be obtained from the offeror’s insurance company and be furnished on the insurance carrier’s letterhead.

iii.

Self-insured contractors or other contractors that cannot provide their EMR rating on insurance letterhead must obtain a rating from the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI) by completing/submitting form ERM-6 and providing the rating on letterhead from NCCI. Note: Self-insured contractors or other contractors that cannot provide EMR rating on insurance letterhead from the states or territories of CA, DE, MI, NJ, ND, OH, PA, WA, WY, and PR shall obtain their EMR rating from their state run worker’s compensation insurance rating bureau.

Evaluation Requirements:

This is a GO/NO-GO requirement. This factor considers the maximum allowable violations and experience modifications.

C.

BID GUARANTEE

Submit the Bid Guarantee in accordance with the "Supplement to Instructions, Conditions and Other Statements to Offerors"

Evaluation requirements:

This item is not rated. The Government will review the Bid Guarantee for legal sufficiency. The Guarantee must be legally sufficient.