Solicitation_Section_M_(52.212-2).pdf

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Volume I- Non-Price Factors:

Factor 1: Technical Experience and Approach- most heavily weighted Factor Factor 2: Key Personnel Experience and Qualifications- weighted less than Factor 1 Factor 3: Past Performance- weighted less than Factors 1 and 2

Volume II- Price Factors Factor 4: Labor Rates for Base Contract Factor 5: Pricing Proposal for Task Order 0001

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

FACTOR SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION METHODS

The Government cannot make award based on a deficient offer. Therefore, a rating of “Unacceptable” or “Fail” under any factor or sub-factor will render the offer ineligible for award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that contractor and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

A “deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful task order performance to an unacceptable level.

“Weakness” means a flaw in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful task order performance.

A “significant weakness” is a proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful task order performance. The Government cannot accept an offer with a deficiency in its technical proposal.

The term “acceptable” is therefore used in this context to describe a technical proposal that does not contain a deficiency and thus could be accepted by the Government, notwithstanding any weaknesses or significant weaknesses in the proposal.

1. TECHNICAL:

The Government will evaluate each contractor’s proposal based on how well the proposal addresses each of the factors below and instructions. The proposal volumes shall be separated using tabs titled with “Factor I- Technical Experience and Approach”, “Factor II- Key Personnel Experience and Qualifications” etc.

The tabs will not be counted as a page where there is a page count limitation. Any prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly adhered to and enforced by the Government. The Government will not evaluate any excess information resulting from the contractor’s failure to comply with the submission instructions.

The contractor’s conformance with the specified, format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Failure to comply with the formatting and/or submission requirements may be seen as indicative of the type of problems that could be expected during task order performance. Lack of conformance could therefore result in a higher risk assessment, in addition to any other impacts on the evaluation.

Technical proposals which do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be downgraded. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified location, and such information may not be evaluated.

2. PRICE:

Proposals which are generic, vague, or lacking in detail may be downgraded. The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government.

The price proposal will be analyzed for reasonableness and balanced pricing. It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed and reflects a clear understanding of the Government's requirements. Price is not scored, but is evaluated and considered along with non-cost factors in the best value determination.

3. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes.

Volume I – Technical and Volume II – Price.

Volume I – Technical shall include all documents needed to satisfy the following factors:

A. Factor 1- Technical Experience and Approach (10 page limit) B. Factor 2- Key Personnel Experience and Qualifications (6 page limit) C. Factor 3- Past Performance (35 page limit)

Tables of contents, proposal cover letters, and tabs between proposal information do not count toward any page limitations in the proposal. Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated.

Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

Volume I - Technical shall be submitted in one ORIGINAL copy plus three (3) individual printed copies and one (1) digital copy (CD).

Volume II – Price shall include:

A. Cover Sheet

B. Acknowledgement of Amendments (if any) C. Copy of completed Standard Form (SF) 33 D. Factor 4- Completed Basic Contract Labor Rates Pricing Schedule spreadsheets E. Factor 5- Completed Task Order 0001 Pricing Schedule spreadsheets F. Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable)

Volume II - Price shall be submitted in one (1) ORIGINAL printed copy, three (3) copies, and one

(1) digital copy (CD) with the pricing spreadsheets in both PDF and Excel formats.

NON-PRICE FACTORS

TECHNICAL RISK/RATING SCALE FOR NON-PRICE FACTORS

This rating scale will be used in conjunction with each non-price evaluation factor, with the exception of past performance.

Outstanding – Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Risk Level: Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good – Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths outweigh weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Risk Level: Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable – Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Risk Level: Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal – Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths do not offset weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Risk Level: Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies;

Proposal is unawardable.

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE AND APPROACH

1. The contractor shall submit an outline, no more than 10 pages in count, detailing the proposed Technical Experience Approach for completing all tasks required by the base and Task Order 0001 PWSs. Using both the front and back will constitute as (2) pages towards the page limit.

Title sheets, indices, and tables of contents are EXCLUDED from the page limitation.

2. The information to be evaluated shall include the following:

A. The contractor’s Leviathan mine site knowledge and cost recovery experience.

B. The Contractor’s ability to mobilize and maintain a local office within approximately 3 hours driving time to the Leviathan mine site in California. The local office should be staffed with personnel who can fulfill requirements of the Contract for Field Staff and either an Engineer or Geologist who is capable of providing oversight of field activities for investigation, remedial activities and Operation and Maintenance Operations.

C. The Contractor’s Project Management skill as applied to: 1) Project reporting to EPA;

Project reporting to Army Corps of Engineers; Cost reporting to Army Corps of Engineers, and Change Control Management Practices; and 2) Project Management, describing how work is anticipated to be accomplished.

D. The contractor’s technical approach narrative shall state the proposed major work elements to be self-performed by the contractor’s in-house work force; and the major work elements to be performed by each subcontractor;

E. Provide assumptions made for activities that will be definitized through development and acceptance of work plans, and the Government considers the following major work elements as "Key":

• Development of assessment and site management plans

• Performance of mine site investigation and responsible party oversight

• Regulatory processes specific to CERCLA

• After action reports, memoranda, technical memoranda specific to mine sites, and

• Other documentation for regulatory compliance.

FACTOR 2 - KEY PERSONNEL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS:

1. The contractor shall submit resumes, no more than two (2) page in length each, for up to three key technical team members proposed to be assigned to this project; to include proposed Project Manager and Technical Lead,

2. The contractor shall provide a statement to the effect that the resumes provided in the technical proposal reflect the contractor’s /subcontractor’s personnel who will perform the work under the awarded contract. In the case of JV the resume shall clearly state the share agreement of each partner. Note that changes in Key Personnel after award will be subject to Contracting Officer approval.

3. Each resume shall demonstrate specific project experience directly related to the work required under the PWS; and shall state what responsibilities the person will have on this project.

Contractors shall include resumes that include each individual’s years of experience in relevant position; experience in projects of similar scope, magnitude, complexity, and schedule. Lead contractor personnel shall have at least five (5) years of experience in similar projects.

Personnel listed shall include both prime contractor personnel and subcontractor personnel for any contemplated major task being performed by a subcontractor. Major project information submitted shall be with firms with whom the contractor has had successful prime/sub relationships in the past or with whom the Contractor intends to use on this project.

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

Offeror shall demonstrate an acceptable past performance record. Provide at least three (3), but no more than five (5) questionnaires for relevant previous projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire with Cover Letter, attached separately. The Government may contact the offeror’s references for information and may review performance ratings on file for prior Government projects the offeror may have performed.

The Governments past performance evaluation will include an assessment of past performance on relevant contracts (as defined above). The evaluation will assess whether the offeror has obtained an overall satisfactory past performance rating on relevant contracts, to determine the ability of the offeror to accomplish the work specified under the RFP. Key focus areas will include the following:

a. Quality

b. Schedule/Timeliness of Performance

c. Customer Satisfaction

d. Management/Personnel/Labor

e. Cost/Financial management

f. Safety/Security

Past performance will be based on the Government’s knowledge of performance under current and previous contracts, information provided by references directly to the Government or through other means, or based on any other reasonable basis. If past performance information is not available for the offeror; the offeror shall be assigned a neutral rating which is neither favorable nor unfavorable. The POCs may be contacted to assess the performance work statement performed and to evaluate performance of the projects listed under the previous experience, if necessary. Each past performance questionnaire is limited to seven (7) 8 1/2” x 11” pages.

• Offeror will be evaluated on the relevancy of the submitted contracts and the confidence level or expectation of successful performance based on the submitted contracts. The Government may contact the offeror’s references for information and may review performance ratings on file for prior Government projects the offeror may have performed.

• Past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror may be used. All relevant facts and circumstances gathered from information from the offeror’s listed references and other sources of information available to the Government will be used to evaluate whether the offeror’s overall past performance and quality of performance is acceptable.

If an offeror has not had a chance to comment on negative past performance evaluation obtained, it will be given a chance during clarifications. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance for whom past performance is not available will be given a neutral rating.

• The Government may also use past performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the offeror. Information obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database located at http//www.ppirs.gov is one of the sources that will be utilized. PPIRS functions as the central warehouse for performance assessment reports received from several Federal performance information collection systems and is sponsored by the DOD E-Business Office and administered by the Naval Sea Logistics Center Detachment Portsmouth.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Relevance Rating Definitions

Very Relevant – Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessment Definitions

Substantial Confidence – Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence - 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.

Price Factors

Price is not rated. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. The Government is concerned with striking the most advantageous balance between technical merit (“quality”) and cost to the Government (i.e., the price). The degree of importance of price could become greater depending upon the equality of the technical proposals. If competing technical proposals are determined to be essentially equal, price could become the controlling factor.

FACTOR 4 – LABOR RATES FOR THE BASE CONTRACT

The proposed labor rates to the included labor categories will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Price will not be scored, but will be a factor in establishing the competitive range prior to discussions (if held) and in making the final determination for award. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

FACTOR 5 –PRICING PROPOSAL FOR TASK ORDER 0001

Price will be determined by adding all the firm-fixed price for all CLINS to find the bottom line price.

Offerors will be required to price all line items for each contract period (base and option years if applicable). Price will not be scored, but will be a factor in making the final determination for award. The Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine completeness, balanced pricing, reasonableness, and understanding of the work. The evaluation will determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirement of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINs) will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If the price analysis indicates that an offer is unbalanced the KO shall consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the reasonableness of the offer. An offer will be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Standard Form 33 and pricing schedules will be checked for minor clerical errors and/or mistakes. After resolution of minor or clerical errors and/or mistakes, the Government will perform a price analysis on all proposals received. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine the adequacy of the offer in fulfilling the requirements of the proposal. Completeness addresses the extent to which the elements of the price proposal are consistent with the requirements of the Request for Proposal. Reasonableness will be established using historical price information, price competition information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and any other pricing tools necessary.

The information requested in this section shall be fully completed.

Factor 1- Technical Experience and Approach is the most heavily weighted Factor, Factor 2- Key Personnel Experience and Qualifications is weighted less than Factor 1, Factor 3- Past

Performance- weighted less than Factors 1 and 2.

Technical Experience and Approach, Key Personnel Experience and Qualifications and Past

Performance when combined are significantly more important than price.

(End of provision)