A22 - Attachment J-4 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award - 25 Oct. 2023.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

REVISED 25 October 2023

M.1 Most Highly Qualified Introduction:

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for the Coralville Lake Ranger Building and Admin Repairs contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the

Government’s requirement defined herein.

M.1.1 Phase I Evaluation Ratings Assignment:

The Government will evaluate all proposals received against General and Administrative Qualifying

Criteria (Factor 1). Those that “Pass” the General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria evaluation will then be evaluated against the Specialized Experience (Factor 2). All General and Administrative

Qualifying Criteria will be evaluated on a pass or fail basis. If an Offeror is evaluated as “Fail” for Factor

1, then they will be removed from further consideration for award. A Combined Technical/Risk rating will be used to evaluate Factor 2.

M.1.2 Phase I Factor Evaluation Matrix:

Evaluation Item Factors Evaluation

General and Administrative

Qualifying Criteria

Factor 1 Pass/Fail

Specialized Experience Factor 2 Combined Technical/Risk

Rating

M.1.3 Phase I Evaluation Scales

M.1.3.1 Factor 1 Evaluation Scale:

The General Administrative and Qualifying Criteria (Factor 1) will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

Rating Description

Pass Proposal meets all stated requirements for this

Factor.

Fail Proposal fails to meet all stated requirements for this Factor.

M.1.3.2 Factor 2 Evaluation Scale:

The Specialized Experience Criteria (Factor 2) will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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.

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Deficiencies and weaknesses, referred to in the above description ratings, are defined as set forth show in the Evaluation Findings Definition Table below. This is a combined Technical/Risk rating. As such, the level of risk to unsuccessful performance will be assigned per the color rating definitions contained within the above table, and not given a separate rating. For example, a proposal can be low risk and still receive a purple or green rating; or a proposal may have multiple strengths, but be assessed to have high risk resulting in a yellow rating. The Specialized Experience (Factor 2) will be evaluated based upon the following evaluation finding definitions:

Evaluation Findings Definitions

Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

M.1.4 Phase I Overall Evaluation and Rating

The Government will review the proposals and rate the quality of evaluation factor 2. The Government will support each rating with a narrative, separately listing all significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and required clarifications. After all proposals are evaluated and rated, the Government will compare the ratings and relative significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies of proposals against each other in order to determine which

Offerors are the most highly qualified under Phase I to participate in Phase II.

M.1.5 Phase II Evaluations

The Government will provide Phase II evaluation information via a RFP Amendment.

M.2 Phase II Evaluations

M.2.1 Phase II Evaluation Ratings Assignment:

The Government will evaluate all proposals received against General and Administrative Qualifying

Criteria (Factor 1). All General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria will be evaluated on a pass or fail basis. If an Offeror is evaluated as “Fail” for Factor 1, then they will be eliminated from further consideration for award and notified IAW FAR 15.503. Those that “Pass” the General and Administrative

Qualifying Criteria Factor evaluation will then be evaluated against the Design Technical (Factor 2), Past

Performance (Factor 3), and Price (Factor 4). A Combined Technical/Risk rating will be used to evaluate

Factor 2. A Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be used to evaluate Factor 3. Price will not be rated.

M.2.2 Phase II Factor Evaluation Matrix:

Evaluation Item Factors Evaluation Relative

Importance

General and

Administrative

Qualifying Criteria

Factor 1 Pass/Fail Not Rated

Design Technical

(Inclusive of Tabs A-C)

Factor 2 Combined Technical/Risk

Rating

Significantly More

Important than

Factor 3 – Past

Performance

Past Performance Factor 3 Performance Confidence

Assessment

Significantly Less

Important that

Factor 2 – Design

Technical

Price Factor 4 Price Analysis

Techniques

Not Rated

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are Significantly more important than price.

M.2.3 Phase II Evaluation Scales

M.2.3.1 Factor 1 Evaluation Scale:

The General Administrative and Qualifying Criteria (Factor 1) will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

Rating Description

Pass Proposal meets all stated requirements for this

Factor.

Fail Proposal fails to meet all stated requirements for this Factor.

M.2.3.2 Factor 2 Evaluation Scale:

The Design Technical (Factor 2) will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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.

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Deficiencies and weaknesses, referred to in the above description ratings, are defined as set forth show in the Evaluation Findings Definition Table below. This is a combined Technical/Risk rating. As such, the level of risk to unsuccessful performance will be assigned per the color rating definitions contained within the above table, and not given a separate rating. For example, a proposal can be low risk and still receive a purple or green rating; or a proposal may have multiple strengths, but be assessed to have high risk resulting in a yellow rating. The Design Technical (Factor 2) will be evaluated based upon the following evaluation finding definitions:

Findings Definitions

Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

Evaluation Criteria for Tab A:

Presentation Drawings and Technical Approach Narrative

Building Functional Arrangement: This assumes the overall functional layout (Floor Plan) and interaction of the spaces in the facilities. This considers the planning and design of the spaces for personnel working conditions and the operations of the facility.

The following criteria will be considered in the evaluation of the functional arrangement of the various facilities:

(a) How well the floor plan responds to the Functional Relationship requirements described in the

Statement of Work

(b) How well the floor plan and space arrangement facilitate workflow and access necessary to operate this facility in accordance with its mission successfully.

(c) Do the proposed plans demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements for circulation, furnishings, equipment, and other specifically identified items in the Statement of Work?

Building Aesthetics: This considers the overall “appeal” of the facility and the desire that both the interior and exterior of the facilities present a professional, attractive appearance. The following two areas will be considered under this and are equal in importance (not rated separately):

(a) Exterior Considerations: To the extent possible within the Government-identified contract cost limitation (CCL), the proposal shall provide the architectural style identified in RFP Section 01

10 00 Statement of Work, subsection 2.8.

Proposals will be evaluated on the design of facades, roof lines, delineation of entrances, proportions of fenestration concerning elevations, shade and shadow effects, materials, textures, architectural style, and exterior color scheme, including:

• How well does the proposal provide a compatible exterior skin appearance based on façade, architectural style, and external detailing?

• Is the building an aesthetically pleasing and provides an attractive addition to the site?

• How well does the building harmonize with its environment?

(b) Interior Considerations:

• Are the proposed colors and material finishes conducive to the facility’s working environment?

• Has the proposal addressed/provided for natural and artificial light in the visitor and administrative spaces, and is the arrangement of fenestration and lighting fixtures in the spaces conducive to furniture placement and space usage?

• Do the proposed ceiling material, elevation, and design enhance the environment?

• Has the proposal included considerations to reduce noise transmission between restrooms, administrative and public spaces, conference rooms, and service/common areas?

Required Spaces and Facility Size:

The proposal must include all the mandatory spaces in response to the requirements outlined in Section 01

10 00, Statement of Work. Proposals will be evaluated on compliance with these requirements. Proposals must identify individual areas that are less than required and describe how such deviation would enhance the building function. The Offerors should be clear how any deviation still meets the intent of the building. Based on the deviation narrative, the Government will subjectively determine if it still meets the intent of the building. Providing a deviation narrative does not automatically make the deviation acceptable. If the Offeror is subjectively found not to provide an acceptable deviation, then the Offeror may be evaluated as unacceptable.

Site Requirements:

The Government will evaluate the overall layout of the site and the various specialties that define a workable, pleasing environment for the personnel and visitors. The proposed site development plan must incorporate all the specific requirements from the Statement of Work and comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements outlined therein.

(a) Proposals that include innovative solutions to stormwater management, landscaping to enhance the complex environment, or other similar improvements beyond the basic requirements may receive a strength during the proposal evaluation process.

(b) Pedestrian Circulation: Acceptable proposals address and include all the specific requirements of the Statement of Work.

The following items are not sub-factors and will be considered with respect to pedestrian circulation and storage.

Pedestrian Considerations:

• Does the proposed sidewalk system provide direct, convenient access to the facilities?

• Does appropriate landscaping enhance the sidewalk system?

• Is site lighting provided improve the site’s security and usability by the pedestrians?

Evaluation Criteria for Tab B:

Building and Site Systems, Material Quality, and Sustainability

General: It is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) objective that these buildings will have a 50-year useful life. The quality of the products and materials have a direct impact on the building’s systems, electrical, mechanical, interior finishes lifespan; therefore, residential or similar grade finishes and materials are not acceptable for inclusion in these buildings, unless specifically allowed in Section 01 10

00.00 10, Statement of Work.

The Government encourages the Offeror emphasize design features that optimize and emphasize functional/operational requirements, interior/exterior finishes and systems, and life cycle/ energy efficiency. The Offeror-identified betterments may receive a strength during the evaluation process if included within the contract cost limitation identified in the solicitation. The Government will identify the

Offeror-identified betterments that are not desirable or are otherwise objectionable or unacceptable during discussions with the proposing The Offeror. Unsubstantiated claims or narrative information may be adversely assessed during the evaluation process. The following elements (not rated separately) will be considered in the building systems and materials of the various facilities evaluation:

(a) Architectural Finishes, Components and Systems:

Proposals must include finishes that provide usable spaces for the intended purposes. Proposals may receive a strength for materials that have extended warranties or longer life expectancies, increased sustainability or durability, low maintenance requirements, and enhance the facility’s overall life cycle cost efficiency.

(b) Furniture Components and Systems:

Proposals must include components and furniture systems that provide the necessary basic function. Proposals may receive a strength for components and systems that have extended warranties or longer life expectancies, increased sustainability, or durability, have low maintenance requirements, and enhance the facility’s overall life cycle cost efficiency.

(c) Mechanical Components and Systems:

Proposals must include components and systems that provide the necessary basic environmental control function. Proposals may receive a strength for components and systems that have extended warranties or longer life expectancies, reduce energy consumption, sustainability, maintainability (cyclical maintenance, access, equipment placement), and enhance the facility’s overall life cycle cost efficiency.

(d) Plumbing Components and Systems:

Proposals must include components and systems that provide the necessary basic function.

Proposals may receive a strength for components and systems that have extended warranties or longer life expectancies, increased sustainability, or durability, low maintenance requirements, and enhance the facility’s overall life cycle cost efficiency.

(e) Electrical Components and Systems:

Proposals may receive a strength for components and systems that have extended warranties or longer life expectancies, increase sustainability or durability, low maintenance requirements, and enhance the facility’s overall life cycle cost efficiency.

(f) Site Utilities Components and Site Systems:

Proposals may receive a strength for components and systems offered that have extended warranties or longer life expectancies, sustainability considerations, low maintenance requirements, and enhance the facility’s overall life cycle cost efficiency.

Evaluation Criteria for Tab C:

Contract Duration and Proposed Schedule

Proposed Contract Duration: When assessing the reasonableness of the proposed contract duration, the

Government will consider how well the proposed summary schedule supports the proposed duration, and use other information, such as but not limited to independent judgment concerning logic, constraints, and typical construction durations. A proposed contract duration that matches the maximum allowed contract duration is “acceptable”. A proposed contract duration shorter than the maximum permitted duration may receive a strength, provided it is realistic and evaluated as achievable. The Government may consider an unreasonably condensed contract duration, which places additional cost or schedule risk on the

Government, or which may create a risk of contract or performance failure, as a weakness, significant weakness, or a deficiency, depending upon the subjective judgment of the evaluation board.

Summary Schedule: Besides the proposed contract duration, the Government will evaluate the summary schedule for integrated design and construction. The length of the schedule must match the Offeror’s proposed contract duration. If is the schedule is shorter than the proposed contract duration, it offers no advantage to the Government because it is non-binding, and only represents a preliminary planned schedule. A shorter schedule may indicate that the Offeror is placing additional risk on the Government for any delays between the scheduled completion date and the required contract completion period. The

Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the Offeror’s project scope understanding and restrictions which must be considered e.g., permitting (see Section 01 10 00.00 10, Statement of Work), long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate schedule logic, the Offeror’s understanding of events associated with coordinating design submittals, reviews and incorporating review comments, the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the proposed contract duration, and the practicality of the schedule.

M.2.3.3 Factor 3 Evaluation Scale:

Evaluation Criteria

The Government will complete a performance confidence assessment of the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success of the Design-Build team's recent (well underway or turned over no longer than eight years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. See the explanation of “well underway” and relevancy under Section

L.4.2. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under the Phase I

Specialized Experience Factor 2 and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal and/or to review other recent projects rated in CPARS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact the Offeror- furnished references, or to review personal knowledge.

The Government will first assess the recency of projects accomplished by the Offeror. The Government will then assess the relevancy of recent projects. Projects similar in size and scope to this project will be considered relevant for the purposes of this evaluation. Conversely, proposals that do not show documentation of projects similar in size and scope will be considered less relevant for the purposes of this evaluation. The projects will include those submitted under the Offeror’s Phase I proposal and could be from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate proposal rating, but is only used in developing the overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance

Factor. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below.

Relevancy Assessment Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

The Government will consider how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider how current and relevant the past performance information is, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. Concerning relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality of design or construction, timeliness, management of the work subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manuals, training, correcting design or construction errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal, including records of conforming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as-built documentation, O&M manuals, training, problem resolution for design or construction errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government places a higher value on projects, that document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, CPARS or other agency performance databases, the Offeror -furnished references, or personal knowledge. The

Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the contractor’s innovative methods to successfully resolve problems. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to accomplish the contract requirements successfully. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below.

Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

Adjectival 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.

M.2.3.4 Factor 4 Evaluation

Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness using price analysis techniques within FAR 15.404-1. No cost/price realism analysis will be done. The price evaluation will also check for unbalanced line-item prices. Contract Line Item prices will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed prices are reasonable for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposal. Proposed prices are Firm-

Fixed-Price and subject to the terms of the contract type. All Base CLIN prices (0001-0004) will be added together, to include Option CLINs (0101 - 0301), to create a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP is the summation of all CLINS (0001-0301). The TEP is the amount that will be used in making an award decision.

If deemed necessary and requested, the supplemental price breakdown information will be used to assist the Government in performing the price analysis evaluations described above.

An award may not be made that exceeds the contract cost limitation described in Section L.1.5.

M.2.4 Phase II Overall Evaluation and Ratings

The Source Selection Evaluation Board will evaluate the proposals and assign a consensus rating for each

Phase II Evaluation Factor, utilizing the evaluation and rating systems described herein.

The Phase I evaluations and overall ratings will not be carried forward into the Phase II evaluation and will not be used by the Source Selection Authority in conducting Phase II comparative analysis to determine the awardee.

M.2.5 Intent to Award without Discussions

During Phase II, the Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors should submit a proposal that provides their best Offer to the Government since further revisions are not intended to occur.

A “Competitive Range” is a subjective determination of the most highly rated Phase II proposals. In the event that discussions with Offerors are held in Phase II, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range of all the most highly rated Phase II proposals. If discussions are held, the Government may engage in a broad give-and-take with each Offeror in the competitive range, in accordance with FAR

15.306 (d). The Government will provide the Offeror an advance agenda for the discussions. During discussions, the Government may ask the Offeror to further explain its proposal and to answer questions about it.

Upon conclusion of discussions, those Offerors still considered the most highly rated will be afforded an opportunity to submit their Phase II proposal revisions for final evaluation.

M.2.6 Discussions

In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of five calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least two business days prior to their discussion session.

Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place virtually or telephonically.

(End of Section M)