Draft Section M TX_LA Group ORC 19 Nov 2019.pdf

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Texas, Louisiana Group Optimized Remediation Contract At

Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; Dyess Air Force Base, Texas; Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas; Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Camp Bullis, Texas; JBSA Fort Sam

Houston, Texas; JBSA Lackland, Texas; JBSA Randolph, Texas; Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas; and Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas

19 November 2019

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

All offers received in response to this RFP will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Section “L” and this Section “M.” The principal purpose of this evaluation process is to make an award of a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) performance-based contract to a single contractor whose proposal is deemed to represent the best value to the Government, Best value will be determined using the tradeoff source selection process based on the instructions and criteria included under Section L and Section M, FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection, and associated supplements. Therefore, the Government may consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offer. In any case, the Government will not award any contract if the resulting contract would not represent a "best value" to the Government using trade-off selection procedures as required by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFARS). All Evaluation Factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Order of Precedence

The evaluation factors are listed below. The technical evaluation factors (Volume 1) are listed in descending order of precedence:

Volume 1 – Technical Factors Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Work Breakdown Structure, Integrated Master Schedule, and Milestone Payment Schedule (without cost) and Pricing Schedule (Attachment L-1)

Factor 3 – Management Approach and Key Personnel Factor 4 – Past Experience Factor 5 – Past Performance

Volume 2 – Cost or Price Information

Factor 6 – Cost/Price Proposal (Milestone Payment Schedule with Cost and Pricing Schedule with Cost [Attachment L-2])

Relative Factor Weighting: Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3, Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4 and Factor 4 is more important than Factor 5. Factor 6 is the least important factor.

All assigned adjectival ratings for the technical evaluation Factors (Volume 1) will be combined, giving appropriate consideration to their relative Factor weighting, to assign an Overall Technical Rating to each Offeror’s Volume 1 – Technical Proposal.

NOTE: ALL NON-PRICE TECHNICAL FACTORS (VOLUME 1) WHEN COMBINED ARE

SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE (VOLUME 2).

2.2 Ratings

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance and capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. This acquisition will use the combined technical/risk rating methodology that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Any “Unacceptable” rating at the Technical Evaluation Factor level, or “Unreasonable” at the Cost/Price Factor level, will make an Offeror’s proposal un-awardable.

2.2.1 Technical Ratings

The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical Factor (Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4) will receive one of the combined Technical/Risk adjectival ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and listed in the Table 1 below. The term “Technical” refers to non-cost Factors other than past performance that is used to assess the Offeror’s experience, capabilities and proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirement.

Technical risk assesses the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The adjectival ratings utilized during proposal evaluation and each rating’s associated description with its level of risk is as follows:

TABLE 1- COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS FOR Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4:

Rating Description OUTSTANDING Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Rating Description MARGINAL Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2.2.2 Past Performance Ratings

Past Performance considers ‘how well’ an Offeror performed and executed requirements on previous contracts, whereas Past Experience considers ‘what’ the Offeror performed and executed. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements, resulting in a Relevancy Rating. A Performance Confidence Rating is also assigned for each Offeror’s Past Performance after assessing and evaluating their past performance, focusing on performance that is recent and relevant to the contract requirements. As a result, an Offeror’s Past Performance rating will consist of two components: 1) a relevancy rating; and 2) a confidence rating. An assigned Past Performance Factor rating will be comprised of one rating from Table 2 (relevancy) and one rating from Table 3 (confidence) resulting in a Relevancy/Confidence rating (i.e. Relevant/Substantial Confidence.

Somewhat Relevant/Limited Confidence, etc.).

The Government will consider past performance information as submitted in accordance with Section L, para 8.5 of this solicitation, and may also consider recent and relevant past performance information outside of the information provided by the Offeror and its customers.

Therefore, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the Offeror as their Past Performance for evaluation, as well as information that may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources.

2.2.2.1 Relevancy Assessment. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance (i.e., Factor 4) will be made based upon evaluation of the offeror’s past performance information to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be performed under this contract. Criteria establishing what is recent and what aspects are considered relevant is stated in Section L, para 8.4. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contract past performance per DoD Source Selection Procedures as reproduced in Table 2 below:

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT

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

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition 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.

2.2.2.2 Confidence. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of the source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance information will be reviewed to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to a performance confidence assessment.

Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance record, or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”.

In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

NEUTRAL 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

2.3 Technical Factors (Volume 1)

2.3.1 Factor 1: Technical Approach

This factor is met when the Offeror provides a clear and concise description of the proposed technical approach for the Texas, Louisiana Group ORC activities and implementation in support of the performance milestones, as outlined in the Performance Work Statement. The technical approach shall provide sufficient detail as to how the Offeror will accomplish the work within the proposed milestone schedule for the base and each option year.

The Government will evaluate more favorably proposals which:

• Effectively identify significant risks associated with the technical approach, propose effective risk mitigation plans, and demonstrate logical and reasonable contingency plans and decision logic and timing for implementation to ensure achievement of the proposed performance objective as scheduled within the contract PoP.

• Propose tailored RAO and monitoring network site optimization strategies based on current data and updated CSMs that maximizes regulatory acceptance, and life-cycle cost reduction.

• Provide performance expectations, relative to schedule, that are aggressive, yet realistic and are demonstrated to accelerate remediation timelines based on site-specific data and sound scientific and engineering principles.

• Provide remedial approaches, designs, and performance monitoring to account for uncertainties and that are adaptive to maintain optimal conditions and trigger contingencies when appropriate.

• Propose use of innovative or state-of-the-science technologies and techniques, including Green and Sustainable Remediation approaches.

• Provide a tailored business case analysis for each site that clearly explains what alternatives were considered and the offeror’s rationale for their proposed technical approach and why it is the ideal approach compared to other alternatives and how it benefits the government.

2.3.2 Factor 2: Work Breakdown Structure. Integrated Master Schedule, Milestone Payment Schedule (without Cost), and Pricing Schedule (without Cost) This factor is met when the Offeror provides a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), a Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS) (without cost), and a Pricing Schedule (Attachment L-1) in accordance with the requirements of the PWS.

The WBS shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the ORC process and work required to achieve each Performance Objective; this would be demonstrated by a thorough work decomposition of each task and effective application of a WBS structure. The WBS shall align with the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)/Sub-CLIN Structure provided with the RFP, consistent with the Offeror’s proposed approach, and in accordance with the requirements in PWS Section 4.1.

The IMS shall be built from the WBS above, consistent with the Offeror’s proposed approach, and the IMS, and in accordance with the requirements in PWS Section 4.2. The MPS (without cost) shall be built from the WBS above, consistent with the Offeror’s proposed approach and the IMS, and in accordance with the requirements in PWS Section 4.3. Attachment L-1, Pricing Schedule without Cost shall not be modified and must align and be consistent with the MPS (without cost).

• Provide an IMS that is based on realistic assumptions and takes into account nuances of technical approaches, all submittals, government review periods, and regulatory framework.

• Clearly identifies schedule risks, critical path analysis, schedule float, and mitigation (schedule recovery) plans to achieve performance objectives as scheduled.

• Provide an MPS that includes a reasonable number of milestone payments per CLIN/Sub-CLIN based on the scope and anticipated duration to achieve CLIN/Sub-CLIN objective and/or PO.

• Provide an MPS that includes no unacceptable milestone payments representing a “progress” payment or a monthly payment for level of effort expended as well as management or overhead type costs.

2.3.3 Factor 3: Management Approach and Key Personnel

This Factor is met when the Offeror’s proposal meets the minimum requirements identified for the Management Plan and proposed individuals for the Key Personnel roles.

The Offeror’s proposal must present a clear, succinct, and comprehensive Management Approach that encompasses the requirements of the RFP and describes how high quality services and deliverables will be provided to the Government.

• Clearly identify roles, responsibilities, and locations for all key personnel and teaming partners supported by an unambiguous organizational chart that depicts the proposed management scheme along with lines of authority and lines of communication for key personnel and teaming partners.

• Provide a clear and effective explanation of the approach to efficiently manage the work, contractor resources, team members, and subcontractors at multiple sites/installations with many concurrent activities.

• Provide a clear and effective plan to provide high quality services and deliverables.

• Provide a clear and effective communications plan between stakeholders (USACE, Customer, Contractor, and other stakeholders).

• Demonstrate the offeror has sufficient, qualified, and properly trained resources to perform the required PWS tasks and has the ability to respond to potentially unforeseen events.

• Demonstrate that the proposed team members have existing relationships and have previously worked together to successfully execute past relevant requirements on multiple occasions.

The evaluation of Key Personnel resumes will consider education, qualifications, professional registration (if applicable) experience, and accomplishments/successes in executing and providing relevant environmental remediation services. In order to be deemed as meeting the minimum qualifications, the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel resumes must clearly demonstrate the individual meets or exceeds the minimum requirements for their respective role identified in the RFP.

• Demonstrate that all proposed key personnel through their resumes have qualifications and successful relevant environmental restoration program experience that exceed PWS minimum requirements.

• Propose a Project Manager whose resume documents they hold a valid Project Management Professional Certification (PMP)

• Provide key personnel whose experience includes participation in the Offeror’s projects presented in Factor 4.

• Demonstrate that the Program Manager and/or the Senior Project manager have experience at achieving or exceeding completion of performance objectives within the original performance period, for projects with requirements comparable to the requirements in the PWS.

2.3.4 Factor 4: Past Experience

This factor is met when the Offeror demonstrates recent and relevant previous project experience as represented by the submitted projects. Relevancy to the contract type (i.e., FFP), magnitude (e.g. number of tasks, scope of support), technical scope, technical complexity and diversity of this solicitation will be assessed in accordance with Section L of this solicitation.

• Provide project(s) which demonstrate a prior working relationship with proposed teaming partner(s)

• Projects which demonstrate similarities to the hydrogeologic and regulatory regime of the Texas-Louisiana Group ORC

• Provide projects which demonstrate successful concurrent execution of performance-based environmental remediation services at military installations on a scale comparable to the Texas-Louisiana Group ORC

• Provide projects which demonstrate Offeror was able to successfully maintain compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, and policy requirements.

• Demonstrate effective negotiation approaches and collaboration with regulatory agencies under performance-based environmental projects resulting in quantifiable success.

• Demonstrate successful use of innovative cost effective remedial optimization processes utilizing the technologies and techniques being proposed for the PWS.

• Provide examples of proactive implementation of mitigation plans under a performance-based environmental project to achieve the performance objective.

2.3.5 Factor 5: Past Performance

This factor is met when the Offeror provides past performance information for projects listed in Factor 3 –Past Experience that demonstrates a record of recent and relevant performance in supplying services similar to the requirements of this RFP in accordance with Section 8.4 of Section L of this RFP.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and confidence. Because offerors are required to submit Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for those projects submitted for Factor 3 – Past Experience, the criteria for what is considered recent and relevant is the same for Past Performance as for the Past Experience Factor. The Confidence rating is based on an assessment of the quality and usefulness of the past performance information as it applies to performance confidence. Evaluation of Past Performance Confidence is an assessment of how well the Offeror performed on the contracts and thus the Offeror’s probability of meeting this solicitation’s requirements.

The government will perform an integrated assessment of relevancy and quality of the offeror’s past performance using data provided by the Offeror in project summaries and potentially from data obtained from other sources in conducting the assessment. The Government may contact references for the identified projects and/or contracts at the Government’s discretion.

• Provide projects with more recent and more relevant Past Performance (i.e., projects performed more recently and that are more relevant to the PWS)

• Provide PPQs which indicate a consistent record of outstanding performance of relevant projects.

• Provide PPQs which indicate superior past performance ratings that are substantiated by independent client comments.

2.4 Cost/Price Proposal (Volume 2)

The cost/price proposal will be analyzed for completeness and price reasonableness to determine best value to the Government. Price analysis techniques and cost analysis techniques used in the price evaluation shall be in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) and FAR 15.404-1(c), respectively.

2.4.1 Factor 6: Cost/Price Proposal

The Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated to determine reasonableness. Each Offeror’s proposed price for each CLIN/sub-CLIN identified on Attachment L-2, Pricing Schedule with Cost, and the total proposed price will be compared to the Average of All Offerors, the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) for the Texas, Louisiana Group ORC PWS, or any combination, to determine the reasonableness of the proposed cost/price and distribution of costs, as well as how realistic the proposed cost/price is for the identified work.

In conjunction with individual costs and bottom line price analyses, the Government will also assess the Offeror’s technical understanding of the PWS based upon the Milestone Payment Schedule with Cost provided with their proposal, the supplemental pricing information provided in Attachment L-4 for each CLIN/sub-CLIN and the Basis of Estimate provided to substantiate proposed prices identified on the Milestone Payment Schedule with Cost. Attachment L-2, Pricing Schedule with Cost, provided with the RFP shall not be modified and must align and be consistent with the MPS (with cost).

Proposals will be evaluated for the degree of risk assumed by the Offeror in their proposal structure and pricing. Unrealistically low (or high) proposed costs/prices determined to be unbalanced or front loaded may be grounds for eliminating the proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement, or has developed and submitted an unrealistic proposal.

Any Cost/Price Proposal that is deemed “Unreasonable” due to being unrealistic, substantially inaccurate, or incomplete will be considered ineligible for further consideration for contract award.

3.0 DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

4.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as Evaluation Factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

5.0 DEFINITIONS

Deficiency. 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 contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. Is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. Is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capabilities requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. Is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. Is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation. Adverse past performance that must be addressed with Offerors includes unfavorable comments received from sources such as those received from respondents from past performance questionnaires or interviews that have not been finalized within a formal rating system. A best practice can be to discuss adverse past performance which caused a rating to be lowered to Satisfactory Confidence.