A01.16_Solicitation_Ammendment_6.docx

B. EVALUATION FACTORS AND PROCESS FOR AWARD

1.0 NON-PRICE FACTORS

1.1. FACTOR ONE – EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

1.1.1. General: Offerors shall submit the following information that demonstrates the recent and relevant experience and capability to successfully perform work similar in size, scope, and complexity as the subject procurement. For this factor, projects considered “relevant” must consist of a similar type of overhead crane as specified in the Scope of Work.

1.1.2. Qualified Supplier. Overhead electric crane system, including sub-system components manufactured by vendors, must be designed and manufactured by a company with a minimum of 10 years of specialized experience in designing and manufacturing the type of overhead crane required to meet requirements of the Scope of Work. Provide at least two (2) but no more than four (4) example projects demonstrating the specialized experience. Offerors shall provide all of the information requested in the form “Relevant Experience of Qualified Supplier”.

1.1.3. Qualified Engineer must have done the design himself/herself or supervised and reviewed work if done by other engineers. The registered professional structural engineer must have the relevant experience defined below:

1.1.4. Qualified Craftsmen must have experience and knowledge in performing work and performed work for at least five years on overhead bridge cranes of similar size and capacity as the crane being installed in this contract. Provide a resume for at least one (1) proposed craftsman. They must have been employed for at least the last two years by a firm specializing in crane work.

1.1.5. Qualified Crane Electricians. There must be a minimum of one licensed electrician during field wiring and critical aspects of the crane field work. Provide a resume and copy of the license for at least (1) proposed crane electrician.

1.1.6. Qualified Crane Inspectors/Test Agency. Crane inspectors must possess the following:

1.2. FACTOR TWO – TECHNICAL APPROACH

1.2.1. Ability to comply with delivery date of 330 days from award (assume 1 May 2018), required by revised Scope of Work dated 2 April 2018. Provide proposed schedule for completion within the period of performance, including removal of the existing crane, procurement of the new cranes, construction, delivery, installation and testing.

1.2.2. Ability to install crane at remote location. Describe personnel, equipment and methods available to install crane.

1.2.3. Acknowledgement of ability to meet crane features required in paragraph 1.2.1 of Scope of Work dated 6 November 2017.

1.2.4. Ability to provide testing and inspection as required by paragraph 1.2.2 of the Scope of Work dated 6 November 2017. The lift test should be performed by an independent subcontractor.

1.3. FACTOR THREE – PAST PERFORMANCE

1.3.1. Offerors shall provide past performance information for each example project submitted for the Qualified Supplier under Factor One.

1.3.2. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror and its team members to submit to the client for each example project submitted under Factor 1. Submit completed PPQs with the proposal. If the offeror cannot obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal due date, then complete and submit the first page of the PPQ showing all contact and client info with the proposal. The Offeror shall provide detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information in a timely manner. Offerors may also include performance recognition documents received within the last 3 years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.

1.3.3. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, PPQs submitted on prior RFPs, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of entities (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror's proposal, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

1.3.4. For reference and evaluation purposes the Offeror shall identify who will perform the major or critical aspects of the project.

1.3.5. The Government reserves the right to evaluate the past performance of any subcontractor identified in the offeror’s proposal as part of its assessment of the acceptability of that offeror’s proposal.

1.3.6 Regardless of the rating or evaluation terminology used in any past performance information, the Government will make an independent determination of the acceptability or non-acceptability of an offeror’s past performance based on the totality of information considered.

2. EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL NON-PRICE FACTORS

2.1. FACTOR ONE: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS. The Government will review the experience and qualification information provided by the Offeror to assess whether they meet the specified minimum criteria for this factor. Offerors providing at least the minimum number of projects and/or resumes which meets all of the minimum criteria will be rated ACCEPTABLE for this factor. Offerors failing to provide at least the minimum number of projects which individually meet all of the minimum criteria will be rated UNACCEPTABLE for this factor. Government will review the resumes submitted by offerors to ensure that the resume clearly substantiates with verifiable data that the proposed individual currently meets the minimum requirements for that position. The failure to submit a resume or clearly substantiate on a resume that an individual meets the minimum requirements may result in a rating of UNACCEPTABLE for this factor. The burden is on the offeror to establish in its proposal that the submitted experience and qualifications clearly meet the minimum requirements. Offerors should not assume that there will be any additional opportunity to substantiate that their experience and qualifications meet the criteria.

2.2. FACTOR TWO: PAST PERFORMANCE. The Government will evaluate and review the completed PPIRS and PPQ, as well as other available past performance data for each of the submitted example projects.

2.2.1. The Government will evaluate past performance in terms of the elements listed below (see also Appendix D):

· Quality of Construction. Based on information provided in the questionnaire and other information, the Government will assess the quality of the actual construction undertaken and the standards of workmanship exhibited by the Offeror’s team.

· Schedule/Timeliness of Performance. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror completing past projects within the scheduled completion times.

· Customer Satisfaction. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s past customer satisfaction, cooperation with customers, and interaction on past projects.

· Management/Personnel/Labor. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror’s management of subcontractors on past projects.

· Cost/Financial Management. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect to the Offeror ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed price(s).

· Safety Security. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect the Offeror ability to maintain an environment of safety and was the Offeror adhere to its approved safety plan.

· General. The Government will evaluate all information available with respect the Offeror ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations.

2.2.2. If the customer for any of the projects submitted for the Qualified Supplier under Factor 1 would rate the Offeror marginal or unsatisfactory overall for any of the projects submitted, or if there are negative ratings (overall marginal or unacceptable/unsatisfactory) for projects meeting the same value, relevancy and recency criteria in another Government database, the proposal will be rated Unacceptable.

2.2.3. Other bases for an unacceptable rating for past performance. If there are any terminations for default, the proposal would receive an overall rating of Unacceptable for this factor.

2.2.4 In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “ACCEPTABLE.”

2.2.5. The Government may contact sources other than those provided by the offeror for information with respect to past performance. These other sources may include other Government rating systems or databases, as well as telephone interviews or communications with Government personnel with personal knowledge of the Offeror’s performance capability.

2.3 NETWORK ANALYSIS SCHEDULE. The Government will review the schedule submitted by offerors to ensure that the schedule clearly demonstrates the identified project activities under Factor 2 in a logical sequence and exhibiting an achievable timeline within the period of performance. The failure to include or clearly and logically identify the project acitivities under Factor 3 or beyond the POP may result in a rating of Unacceptable for this factor.

3. NON-PRICE EVALUATION PROCESS

3.1 The SSA will select all or a minimum of the three (3) lowest-price proposals for technical review by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). Proposal pricing will not be revealed to the SSEB. If none of the selected proposals are technically acceptable, then the SSA will select the next lowest-price proposal or proposals for technical review, and so on. Proposals not selected for technical review because of proposal pricing will not be further reviewed. Any debriefing of offerors whose proposals were not selected for technical review will reflect this approach and will not receive a technical review merely for the purpose of debriefing. While the intent is to award without discussions, if at any stage in this process it is determined to be necessary to conduct discussions, the SSA will determine the proposals to be included in the competitive range consistent with FAR 15.306(c).

3.2 Technical proposals will be evaluated consistent with the uniform evaluation procedure set forth in this section of the solicitation. The SSEB will conduct an in-depth review of each proposal against the factors and any subfactors established in the solicitation as follows:

3.2.1. All proposals received will be subjected to an initial screening by the Contracting Officer to determine whether proposals are complete and in accordance with the solicitation. Proposals that fail this initial screening process may be rejected and the offeror will be notified they are no longer eligible for further consideration.

3.2.2. Each member of the SSEB will independently evaluate all information provided in a proposal against the prescribed non-price factors and any subfactors. Once these individual evaluations are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

3.2.3. Past performance, as instructed above, shall be included in the Technical Proposal and evaluated by the SSEB.

3.2.4. The overall ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE rating along with ratings on individual factors, to include all supporting documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority.

3.3. Offerors are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must not merely parrot back the contractual requirements, but rather provide substantive, understandable and realistic evidence to support promised performance.

4. NON-PRICE RATING

4.1 Proposals selected for technical review will be evaluated against the minimum requirements for each non-price evaluation factor based on the ratings and descriptions in the following tables:

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

4.2 In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “ACCEPTABLE.”

4.3 In order to receive an overall ACCEPTABLE rating, a proposal must receive an ACCEPTABLE rating on all non-price factors and any subfactors. A proposal receiving an UNACCEPTABLE on one or more non-price factors or subfactors will receive an overall UNACCEPTABLE rating and be ineligible for award.

4.4 The final overall rating, along with ratings on individual factors, will be provided to the SSA and used in making the determination of which Offeror(s) is/are eligible for award.

5. PRICE EVALUATION.

5.1 Price will not be rated but will be evaluated as to its fair and reasonableness. Pricing for the contract shall be completed and submitted on the Pricing Schedule shown at Section 00010 of the solicitation.

5.2 The Government will perform a price analysis on all technical acceptable proposals received for the contract. Price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, to determine fairness and reasonableness as well as to assure an understanding of the work and ability to execute the contract at price proposed. The evaluation will determine the extent to which the price proposal is consistent with the requirements of the RFP. Historical price information, competitive price information, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or any other pricing tool as necessary will be utilized in making this determination. Offerors are advised that any offer wherein pricing is deemed unfair or unreasonable will be rendered ineligible for award.

5.3 The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6. BASIS FOR AWARD

6.1. Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include responsiveness, responsibility, technical acceptability, and fair and reasonable pricing.

6.2. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offeror, if any, will receive the contract award. Any such award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable and has the lowest price that is determined fair and reasonable.

6.3. The Government reserves the right to reject any and all offers.

6.4. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.