Section 00 22 00 Evaluation Factors Rev_01.docx

1. BASIS FOR AWARD (Evaluation Factors for Award Section 00 22 00)

Notwithstanding any other provisions of these specifications concerning the method of award, award will be made as a whole to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is within a Technical/Price competitive range as determined by the Contracting Officer, if established, and has been evaluated as most advantageous to the Government. It is contemplated that discussions may not be conducted. The Government may award a contract, based on initial offers received, without discussions of such offers. Accordingly, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms which the offeror can submit to the Government.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: Technical Approach, Experience, Management Approach, Past Performance, Small Business Participation Plan and Cost/Price. Among the non- price factors Technical Approach, Experience, and Management Approach, are equal in importance and are more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Small Business Participation Plan.

All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Thus, price is not expected to be the controlling factor in the selection of the Contractors for this solicitation. However, as the evaluated merit of competing technical proposals becomes more equal, total price and other price factors will become more important in the selection. Total price and other price factors could become the deciding factor for selection, depending upon whether the most acceptable technical proposal is determined to be worth the cost differential, if any. Non-price factors will be evaluated by source selection evaluation board prior to review of price factors by contracting officer.

NOTE: ALL EVALUATION FACTORS OTHER THAN COST OR PRICE, WHEN COMBINED, ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN COST OR PRICE.

ARITHMETIC DISCREPANCIES

0. For the purpose of initial evaluation of proposals the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on the face of the price breakout schedule as submitted by the Offerors:

0. Obviously misplaced decimal points will be corrected;

0. In case of discrepancy between unit price and extended price, the unit price will govern;

0. Apparent errors in extension of unit prices will be corrected;

0. Apparent errors in addition of lump sum and extended price will be corrected; and

0. For the purpose of proposal evaluation, the Government will proceed on the assumption that the Offeror intends his/her proposal to be evaluated on the basis of unit prices, extensions, and totals arrived at by resolution of arithmetic discrepancies as provided above and the proposal will be so reflected on the price breakout schedule.

1. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation described below.

Factor 1: Technical Approach: During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign this factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Experience: During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign this factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 3: Management Approach: During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign this factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 4: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation Plan: During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign this factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 6: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be Firm-Fixed Price. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the requirements of the solicitation. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section.

1. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

0. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

0. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

1. Factors 1, 2, and 3, will be evaluated as follows:

Factor 1 (Technical Approach): This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed methods of construction, quality control and project schedule. Marginal levels of overall demonstrated ability to perform these tasks could indicate either a lack of ability to perform or lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

The evaluation will focus on the offerors:

1. Ability to achieve specified embedment into bedrock

1. Quality of barrier design at critical section around 7’ x 7’ box culvert

1. Ability to achieve specified embedment (or equivalent) into bedrock at critical section

1. Quality of proposed culvert preservation and repair

1. Barrier design permeability

1. Barrier design compressive strength

1. Barrier design homogeneity, including redundancy measures to compensate for lower homogeneity.

1. Proposed quality control means and methods for the seepage barrier and critical section of seepage barrier.

1. Quality of joints between panels (if panel method is chosen) or different seepage barrier methods (ie. Critical section connection to non-critical section)

1. Quality of critical section design proposal to ensure negligible concentrated leakage along box culvert walls

1. Equipment & tools to be used for the project (ie. Quality, safety, adequacy)

1. Risk to levee, culvert or city.

1. Proposed project schedule (Due to the emergency status of the project, compressed schedules with limited durations of outages to the outlet culvert and pump station will be given higher ratings)

1. Demonstrate clear understanding of critical scheduling of work components in order to successfully accomplish the project within a compressed schedule.

1. Demonstrate clear understanding of how proposed work site, access roads and construction platform will be laid out and designed.

The above tasks are listed in order of importance. The Government will give greater weight in their evaluation to proposals that demonstrates the capability and experience to perform the more important tasks.

Factor 2 (Experience): This factor evaluates the offeror’s experience with projects of a similar construction and complexity. Factor 2 evaluates both, the offeror’s organization experience as well as subcontractor and individual team member experience.

The evaluation will focus on the offerors:

1. Prime and subcontractor’s experience with the offeror’s proposed construction methods.

1. Prime and subcontractor’s experience with construction projects of similar scope and complexity.

1. Key personnel and individual team members’ experience with the offeror’s proposed construction methods.

1. Prime and subcontractor’s experience with similar depth (or deeper) seepage barrier construction.

1. Prime and subcontractor’s experience with dam or levee seepage barrier construction

1. Key personnel and individual team members’ experience with area of expertise in which they will be responsible.

The above tasks are listed in order of importance. The Government will give greater weight in their evaluation to proposals that demonstrates the capability and experience to perform the more important tasks.

Factor 3 (Management Approach): This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed capability to manage and administer required tasks. The Offeror will furnish a plan that will insure that the proper level of effort is directed toward each aspect of the task required; that the offeror has at his or her disposal the organization and personnel required by the specification of the contract; and assure that all work will be performed safely and as specified. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

Personnel and Organization - This evaluates the offerors proposed organizational structure and personnel provided for overall management of the work associated with this contract. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

1. Person(s) provided who will be the on-site Contractor Representative(s).

1. Technical trades personnel to be utilized to perform the work with focus on their education, background, experiences, licenses, certificates, or other information evidencing their qualifications.

1. Organizational placement of personnel and whether such individuals are current on the offeror’s payroll or have been personally committed for employment on this contract.

1. Proposed subcontractors and their role in the contract.

1. Personnel management policies regarding standards of conduct and disciplinary practices.

1. Strike Contingency Plan.

1. An administrative procedures to assure availability of key management personnel to be contacted as the need arises.

Organizational Chart - This evaluates the offeror’s chain of command and individual responsibilities. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

1. Demonstrate a clear team structure / chain of command including Prime / subcontractors.

1. Identify all key rolls and individuals who will fill the rolls, both on-site and off-site.

1. Contingency plan for redundancy in project rolls

Factor 4 (Past Performance): The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the solicitation.

1. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Factor IV.

1. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty three (23) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past ten years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 237990. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past ten years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past ten years without regard to the contract award date.

1. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past ten years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

1. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

1. Relevancy: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

1. Quality Assessment: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

1. Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Factor 5 (Small Business Participation Plan): This factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed level of participation of Small Business (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractor) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the objectives/goals listed below:

0. Applicable size of Prime Contractor and Socio-Economic Category (if applies)

0. Total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors)

0. The total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of small business sub-category, if applicable. (If a small business qualifies in multiple categories, include it in multiple categories)

0. The principle supplies/services to be provided/performed by Small Businesses

0. The extent of commitment to use small businesses in this procurement (for example: small business prime, written contract, verbal agreement, joint venture arrangement, mentor-protégé business relationship, etc.)

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS

Small Business Participation Plans (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the basis of:

1. The extent of participation of small businesses in terms of the value of the total acquisition and the extent of which the proposals meet and/or exceed small business participation goals for this acquisition.

1. Past performance of the offerors (large businesses only) in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

1. The extent to which small businesses are specifically identified by name in proposals;

1. The extent of commitment to small businesses (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones); and

1. The complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform.

Small Business Participation Plan The offeror will be required to provide the following information as part of their proposal:

4. Check the applicable size and categories for the PRIME offeror -- Check all applicable boxes:

{ } Large Prime or { } Small Business Prime; also categorized as a { } Small Disadvantaged Business { } Woman-Owned Small Business { } HUB Zone Small Business { } Veteran Owned Small Business { } Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

4. Submit the total combined percentage/dollars of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed both by Prime and Subcontractors):

When combined, Large and Small Business totals must equal 100%.

Percentage of Total Contract Dollars/Price

Total Percentage/Dollars planned for Large Business(es) %

Total Percentage/Dollars planned for Small Business(es) %

Total %

4. Indicate the total percentage/dollars of participation to be performed by each type of small business. The percentage/dollars of work performed by Small Businesses that qualify in multiple small business categories may be counted in each category:

Small Business Small Disadvantaged Small Business

Total

4. List principle supplies/services to be performed by Small Businesses:

Name of Company Identify Type of Service/Supply

Small Business:

Small Disadvantaged Business:

Women-Owned Small Business:

Veteran-Owned Small Business:

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business:

HUBZone Small Business:

4. Describe the extent of commitment to use small businesses (e.g., what types of commitments, if any, are in place for this specific acquisition -- written, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint venturing, mentor-protégé, etc.)

4. Large Business Subcontracting Past Performance: Describe the extent to which you attained applicable goals for contracts that required you to submit a Subcontracting Plan. You may include copies of up to three “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” or “Summary Subcontract Report” to validate your past performance. Provide an explanation of your efforts where you failed to meet goals.

Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, large business offerors must also submit a subcontracting plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan.) Large businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.

Factors 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 will be evaluated using the combined technical/risk rating methodology as described below using the adjectival ratings in Table 1.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical requirements for factors 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Factor 5 will be evaluated using the combined technical/risk rating methodology as described below using the adjectival ratings in the below table.

The Small Business Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements for factor 5.

OUTSTANDING

Offeror is a Small Business or offeror specifically identifies small business firm(s) in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to small business firm(s), for example enforceable commitment with one or more firms; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to far exceed the 23% small business participation goal (offering 20% or more); meets or exceeds two or more subcategory small business goals. For large business prime - displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

GOOD

Offeror is a large or small business. Small business firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates substantive commitment to small business firm(s), for example enforceable commitment with one or more firms; identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; demonstrates commitment to exceed the 23% small business participation goal; and meets or exceeds one or more subcategory small business goals. For large business prime - displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9.

ACCEPTABLE

Offeror is a large or small business. Small business firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal; demonstrates a commitment to small business firm(s); identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; and demonstrates commitment to meet the 23% small business participation goal. Does not meet any of the subcategory small business goals. For large business prime - displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219- 9.

MARGINAL

Offeror does not specifically identify small business firms but does demonstrate a commitment to seek small firms in an attempt to meet the 23% small business participation goal. Offeror explains methods that will be used to seek small firms and identifies the work intended for small businesses to perform.

UNACCEPTABLE

Offeror does not demonstrate commitment to meet the 23% small business participation goal and/or does not identify small business firms in the proposal; and/or does not demonstrate a commitment to use small business firms; and/or does not identify the work small businesses are to perform. For large business prime – does not display past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 (without justification or substantive effort).

Factor 6 (Cost/Price): The contract will be firm fixed price standalone Construction Contract award. The Government will evaluate proposals for the purpose of determining the reasonableness and completeness of the prices offered. Price proposals will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing as a part of the Government’s reasonableness determination. Completeness includes review of Proposal Schedules. Unreasonably high or low prices as determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), through the use of price analysis techniques under FAR 15.404-1(b), may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range, if one is established; based upon the assessment that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unreasonable proposal.