Attachment_0003_-_Section_M-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award Attachment 0003

EVALUATION FACTORS

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(1), the Government intends to award a contract or contracts resulting from the solicitation to all qualifying offerors as stated in Class Deviation 2018-O0006. Price will not be used as part of the award determination. The Contracting Officer shall consider price or cost as one of the factors in the selection decision for each task order under the multiple-award contract, in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii).

The awards will be made with appropriate consideration given to the following four evaluation factors: (1) Corporate Experience, (2) Past Performance, (3) Technical and Management Approach and (4) Small Business Participation.

The Government intends to make award(s) without discussions; however the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if necessary in accordance with FAR 15.306. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001.

The Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors. A qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. Qualifying offerors must receive a rating of at least “Acceptable” for Factor’s 1, 3 and 4 and must be determined to be a responsible source, with a rating of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for Factor 2, Past Performance.

Throughout the Solicitation, “key subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who will perform at least 20% of the total contract value. A letter of commitment shall be provided for each key subcontractor. Additionally a letter of commitment shall be provided from all key subcontractors utilized in Factors 1, 2 and/or 3.

FACTORS (WITH KEY ELEMENTS) TO BE EVALUATED

The following factors and key elements shall be used to evaluate Offerors.

*Elements will be evaluated but will not be given a separate adjectival rating.

FACTOR 1: CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

a. *Technical Approach

b. *Management Approach

FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

FACTOR 1 – CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

Experience in the Operation and Maintenance of Medical and Supporting Facilities

In accordance with section L, Offerors shall be required to submit a minimum of five, up to a maximum of seven projects on the Experience Reporting Form (Attachment 0004). All projects included for consideration must have started or completed within five years from the issued date of this solicitation. These projects will be evaluated for breadth and depth of experience in the operation and maintenance (O&M) of medical facilities. Offerors must demonstrate relevant experience in performing medical O&M services in private or government medical facilities. In addition, Offerors should possess experience in medical O&M services in supporting facilities; equipment maintenance and repair services in medical facilities; medical facilities corrective maintenance services; and construction services such as the alteration, renovation, conversion, and/or reconfiguration of rooms, areas, and/or facility systems of real property medical facilities. Extensive experience in one specific type of technology, building system, or facility type is not by itself considered a qualifying factor.

Under this Factor the Offerors shall be required to demonstrate that both the prime (to include any joint venture partners) and all key subcontractors have acceptable experience in the performance of O&M services for medical facilities. Additionally, all offerors must demonstrate experience with Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS); such as, but not limited to, Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support - Facility Management (DMLSS-FM) system.

Accordingly, offerors other than small businesses must demonstrate experience, as a prime, providing O&M services at full service inpatient care medical treatment facilities, and the ability to perform multiple projects simultaneously across a large geographic area.

Small businesses must demonstrate full spectrum O&M services performed at ambulatory care facilities.

Factor 1 “Corporate Experience” will be evaluated using the following rating methodology:

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevance and quality of products or services.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements and delivering high quality products and services as indicated by that Offeror's recent and relevant record of past performance. In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime Contractor and its proposed key subcontractors.

A letter of commitment must be provided from all key subcontractors. A “Contractor team arrangement” is an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime Contractor or (2) a potential prime Contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program (see FAR 9.6). In either case the prime Contractor and proposed key subcontractors shall be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the Offeror’s Past Performance rating. Past performance of prime Contractors or key subcontractors whose firms are divided into severable segments (i.e. division, group, unit, etc.) will only be evaluated as it relates to those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

The Government will utilize the project Experience Reporting forms for each project identified in Volume I, Medical Facility O&M Technical Experience. Past Performance references will first be reviewed to determine the relevancy of the past performance information. More relevant past performance will be treated as a stronger predictor of future success and will therefore have more influence on the overall performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Recency is defined as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Relevancy is defined as contracts similar in size, scope and complexity. Quality is defined as the overall quality of the past performance.

CORPORATE EXPERIENCE RATINGS

Color Adjective Description

Green

Acceptable

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

Red 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 un-awardable.

Factor 2 “Past Performance” will be evaluated for relevancy using the following rating methodology:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

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

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

When determining the overall performance confidence assessment for an Offeror, the Government will also utilize information obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment System (CPARS). For projects with no CPARS rating, the offeror may utilize the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) Attachment 0005. PPQs will not be evaluated for projects with an available CPARS evaluation. In the event the CPARS evaluation is not specific to the offeror, PPQs will be allowed. If no recent/relevant performance record is available or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror shall be given a neutral confidence rating.

The Offeror is cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror's proposal in addition to data obtained from other sources and other relevant projects. Since the Government may not necessarily obtain information on all of the listed contract references and/or may not contact all of the identified POCs provided by the Offeror, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. In the event that adverse past performance information is obtained from other sources, and the agency conducts either discussions or communications with the particular Offeror as defined in FAR 15.306, the Offeror will have the opportunity to respond to any adverse information received which it had not had a previous opportunity to comment.

Factor 2 “Past Performance” will be evaluated using the following rating methodology:

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

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.

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.

FACTOR 3 – TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

a. Technical Approach

Offerors shall be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach for performing operation and maintenance (O&M) services in medical facilities is feasible. Offerors must demonstrate a sound technical approach for performing the required services while complying with The Joint Commission (TJC) Environment of Care standards, Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), and other applicable codes/standards.

The Government will also assess the quality of the Offeror’s Quality Control and Safety Plans in addition to the other items listed in Section L. The Offeror’s technical capability will be evaluated to determine if the team has the capability and the resources available to perform all requirements identified in Section C of the Solicitation.

b. Management Approach

The Offeror’s proposed management approach will be evaluated for risk of less than successful contract performance based on the requirements in Section L. One element of risk is the number of different business entities that comprise the team and how much of that risk is not mitigated. Risk mitigation includes clarity in the roles and responsibilities of each of the various team members (such as joint venture partners or key subcontractors), streamlined organizational structure, clear lines of accountability, letters of commitment from key subcontractors and key personnel, and the nature and number of the relevant projects to the PWS the various team members have worked on together. Key personnel qualifications and experience will also be evaluated under this factor. The proposal shall also address how the team will work together at the task order level under the proposed contract to perform medical O&M services.

Factor 3 “Technical and Management Approach” will be evaluated using the following rating methodology:

FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Small Business Commitment Document:

All Offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) shall be evaluated on the level of small business commitment demonstrated for the proposed acquisition and the use of small businesses demonstrated in the performance of prior contracts relevant to the PWS. The following shall be provided, at a minimum as evidence of small business participation:

• The extent to which such firms identified in FAR Part 19 are specifically identified in proposals;

• The extent of commitment to use such firms (Signed commitments will be considered more favorable)

• The identification of the complexity and the variety of the work small firms are to perform;

• Past performance of the Offeror in complying with the requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan

• The extent of proposed participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition ($990,000,000.00)

Small Business Commitment Document The small business participation commitments for this procurement are listed below. Both other than small businesses and small businesses that submit proposals under the new OMEE acquisition shall be required to propose on the extent of their inclusion of small businesses, including: small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, HUBZone business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business in their performance of the contract.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

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

Red 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 un-awardable.

Small Business:

27%

Small Disadvantaged Business 5%

Woman-Owned Small Business 5%

HUBZone Small Business 2%

Veteran Owned Small Business 5%

Service Disabled Veteran Owned

3%

The work to be performed directly by a small business prime Offeror shall be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

As part of the source selection evaluation, and in order to receive a rating of Acceptable, an Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document must demonstrate a thorough approach and commitment to utilize small business concerns. The proposed Small Business Commitment Document will be incorporated into any resulting contract.

The Small Business Proposal format (Attachment 0006) is designed to streamline and bring uniformity to responses and evaluations for Small Business Participation (FAR 15.304).

• Other than Small business contractors may achieve the small business commitment through subcontracting to small businesses.

• Small business contractors may achieve small business commitments through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and subcontracting to other small businesses.

• The Government will monitor the Contractor’s compliance with the Small Business Commitment Document to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions stated within. These commitments will be assessed atthe contract level, commencing in the first performance year of the contract.

All offerors (both other than small and small businesses) shall be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of the contract (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the minimum quantitative requirements established herein.

Factor 4 “Small Business Participation” will be evaluated for acceptability as defined in the following table:

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Proposal meets the minimum quantitative requirements (offers 27% or greater) and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. SB firm(s) are specifically identified, demonstrates a commitment to SB firm(s), for example has at least three signed commitment(s). Has a positive past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8. For other than Small Business firms – has a positive past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-9. Risk of unsuccessful performance in meeting SB objectives is low.

Red Unacceptable Proposal is deficient and does not meet requirements (offers <27%) demonstrate an adequate approach or understanding of the requirements. SB firm(s) may not be specifically identified; a commitment to utilize SB firm(s) may not have been provided; the complexity and variety of work SBs are to perform may not have been identified; evidence is lacking that SB targets are achievable. Is not clear on past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8.

For other than Small Business – past performance is not clear in complying with 52.219-9., Risk of unsuccessful performance in meeting SB objectives is high.