evaluation factors.docx

EVALUATION & BASIS FOR AWARD

SECTION 00120 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. This solicitation is for a Firm Fixed Price Contract. The Government intends to award a single contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the RFP's requirements and is judged to represent the Best Value to the Government. The Best Value is the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, and consistent with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria. This may result in award being made to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror, if the Contracting Officer determines that the past/present performance of the higher-priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

1.2. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of past performance and price. While the Government and the Source Selection Authority will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process. A Proposal receiving a “High Risk " rating is unawardable and may be removed from further consideration for award.

1.3. The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection procedures. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria listed in “Evaluation Factors for Award”. Noncompliance with the RFP requirements may raise serious questions regarding an offeror’s past performance and/or cost performance and may be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

1.4. The Contracting Officer will conduct proposal compliance review after closing for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators. Failure to provide a complete proposal, all 2 Volumes, may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award.

1.5. Offerors must ensure that no pricing information is displayed in Volume 2, Past Performance Proposal.

1.6. Although the assessment of Past Performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9, Past Performance information obtained herein will be used during the Government’s responsibility determination. The Government also reserves the right to obtain additional information solely for the purpose of making a responsibility determination from all offerors after receipt of proposals. Request for responsibility information do not constitute discussions.

1.7. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later 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.

1.8. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interest.

1.9. ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (if applicable e.g., key personnel, subcontractors, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions will require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.1. The evaluation factors are Past Performance and Price. The relative importance of the evaluation factors that will affect the contract award are as follows: Past performance is approximately equal to price. The evaluation process is as follows:

2.2. PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

2.2.1. The Past Performance evaluation will consider such things as an offeror's business practices, customer relationship, ability to successfully perform as proposed, and other considerations as described in Present Performance Sub-factors, elements and other considerations. Past Performance includes current/on-going (present) performance complete to 70% percent.

2.2.2. In assessing performance confidence, the evaluator may: (1) evaluate present and past performance information through the use of questionnaires completed by the offeror's references; (2) use data independently obtained from other Government or commercial sources, to include but not limited to Government databases; (3) rely upon personal business experience with the offeror; (4) the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy Questionnaire; and (5) consider any information the offeror submits which explains any problems encountered on the identified contractor and the offeror's corrective actions. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

2.2.3. The evaluation may take into account Past Performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition. The evaluation will also consider information provided relative to corrective actions taken to resolve problems on past or existing, contracts.

2.2.4. An offeror with no relevant Past Performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors. These ratings may have the same weight as the ratings of the proposing company. If such information is not applicable (i.e., the offeror does not have a predecessor company, key personnel or subcontractors with relevant experience), the offeror shall be evaluated as "Neutral”. However, the proposal of an offeror with no relevant Past Performance history, while rated ”Neutral” in Past Performance, may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposal of other offerors. Offerors without previous Government contracts shall be rated neutral in the area of compliance with small business concerns requirements.

2.2.5. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals, e.g., the relevance of an offeror's past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors.

2.3. Currency, Relevancy, and Trends: Evaluators will consider the performance information for currency, relevancy as well as trends in the performance while conducting its evaluation.

2.3.1. Current means performance occurring within the last five (5) years for the period beginning five years prior to the solicitation release date. Within this period, performance occurring later in the period may have greater significance than work occurring earlier in the period.

2.3.2. In assessing relevancy, the Government may evaluate an offeror's references for similarity of the construction methods; 21,100 SF and function of building; project scope; cost magnitude, and complexity of work performed to those required for the proposed effort. The Government may also consider similarity of the client type and/or the projects sustainability requirements. ANG projects will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED®. Trends in performance will be considered. Relevancy may affect an offeror’s overall Past Performance rating.

2.3.3. The Government may consider an offeror’s previous contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an offeror’s work experience on three contracts may, by definition, represent only a semi-relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a relevant effort.

2.3.4. The following apply to weighting relevancy considering all the elements listed above;

2.3.4.1. VERY RELEVANT - Past/present performance efforts may have involved the magnitude of effort and complexities, which are essentially what this solicitation requires.

2.3.4.2. RELEVANT - Past/present performance efforts may have involved less magnitude of effort and complexities, including some of what this solicitation requires.

2.3.4.3. SEMI-RELEVANT - Past/present performance efforts may have involved much less magnitude of effort and complexities, including some of what this solicitation requires.

2.3.4.4. NOT RELEVANT - Past/present performance efforts may have involved none or significantly less magnitude of effort and complexities, to what this solicitation requires.

2.3.4.5. Offerors who otherwise have satisfactory performance on previous construction projects may be rated “neutral” if those projects are not considered relevant to the proposed acquisition and relevancy cannot be obtained through the evaluation of key personnel and/or subcontractors. Projects that are not current will not be considered in the evaluation.

2.4. Past Performance Sub-factors. There are six (6) sub-factors. Quality Control, timely performance and Management effectiveness are the most significant sub factors and are of equal value and combined, are significantly more important than the other three sub factors. Other sub factors are listed in descending order of importance. Evaluation will be at the factor level.

2.5. The elements that may be considered under each sub factor are described below:

2.5.1. Quality Control (QC): Evaluators may consider such things as: Quality of Workmanship; Adequacy of the Contractor QC; Identification/correction of deficient work in a timely manner; Suggested solutions and displayed initiative to implement solutions; Adequacy of Materials; Use of specified materials; Adequacy of Submittals and Adequacy of "As-Builts”.

2.5.2. Timely Performance: Evaluators may consider such things as: Met established progress schedule; Timely submission of updated and revised progress schedules; Resolved delays in an expeditious manner; Identification/correction of deficient work in a timely manner; Provided submittals in a timely manner; Completed all contract work prior to requesting final inspection; Timely completion of punch-list items; Left no major discrepancies; Timely submission of close out documents, i.e., “as builts”, “red lines”; Contractor provided timely and satisfactory response to warranty issues after project completion.

2.5.3. Management Effectiveness: Evaluators may consider such things as:

2.5.3.1. General Business Practices, including, but not limited to: Contractor provided experienced managers, and supervisors with the ability needed to meet contract requirements; Hired experienced subcontractors; Paid subcontractors/suppliers in a timely manner; The contractor cooperated to resolve problems, attending meetings (as applicable) and maintained communication to assure satisfactory resolution;

2.5.3.2. Pricing, including, but not limited to: The contractor submitted proposals that accurately represented the work required; The contractor's supporting price/cost information for modifications were accurate, complete and reasonable (not over inflated or under estimated); Provided well-substantiated pricing data for change orders;

2.5.3.3. Site Management/Superintendent, including, but not limited to: Site manager ensured compliance to contract requirements & safety regulations; Site manager acted promptly to resolve problems and ensure work quality; Site manager had sufficient authority to make decisions or take actions during project performance; Site manager consistently present on site when work was performed.

2.5.3.4. Sustainability requirement compliance including but not limited to: Extent to which the contract’s sustainability requirements were met. Achievement of USGBC recognition at certified or silver level on completed projects is considered a benefit to the Government and may receive additional consideration. Achievement above the silver level may receive additional consideration. This is considered a critical element in this subfactor.

2.5.4. Compliance with Safety Standards: Evaluators may consider such things as: Adequacy of implementation of safety plan; Acceptable safety history.

2.5.5. Compliance with Federal laws and regulations: Evaluators may consider such things as: Compliance with labor laws and regulations with specific attention to Davis-Bacon Act including, but not limited to: Submitted payrolls in a timely manner; Payrolls were complete and correct; Compliance with Drug Free Work Place requirements; Compliance with Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition; Use of Recovered Material (Affirmative Procurement); Compliance with Environmental Regulations.

2.5.6. Compliance with Small Business Concerns Requirements: Evaluators may consider such things as; (Applicable to all offerors) Adequate Utilization of Small Business Concerns clause requirements (FAR Clause 52.219-8). Utilization of Small Business Concerns clause requirements include utilization of small, small disadvantaged, HUBZone, women-owned, and disabled veteran businesses on prior Government contracts. (This will be rated neutral if no Government contract); generally, demonstrated compliance with the clause.

2.6. Other Past Performance Considerations: Evaluators may also consider the following issues when evaluating an offeror's Past Performance. These issues may help provide additional guidance in deciding a descriptive performance confidence assessment (e.g., "Very Low Risk" or "Low Risk") for a specific offeror if there is a question as to which adjective is most appropriate.

2.6.1. Effectiveness of value engineering change proposals on prior Government contracts (impact on reducing cost or schedule, increasing efficiency or improving quality);

2.6.2. Professional/Industry Awards

2.6.3. Letters of appreciation, recognition or commendation, etc., received on behalf of a customer may be submitted. The Government will consider up to five (5) such documents.

2.6.4. Unique skills and accomplishments;

2.6.5. Assessment of liquidated damages (frequency, circumstances, severity of problem, etc.)

2.6.6. Contractor Desirability: Based on the contractor's overall performance, how willingly would a customer re-hire the offeror.

2.7. The following ratings and related definitions will be used to define the performance risk. Based on the evaluation results, the evaluators will assign the Past Performance factor one of the ratings as defined below.

2.7.1. Very Low Risk: Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the Government's benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely and highly effective manner. Performance was current and generally very relevant to relevant. Excellent probability of success with overall very low degree of risk in meeting Government's requirements.

2.7.2. Low Risk: Performance met contract requirements. Good quality. Minor problems were identified; however, contractor took satisfactory corrective action to resolve where appropriate. Performance was current and generally very relevant to relevant. Good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the government's requirements.

2.7.3. Average Risk: Performance met most contract requirements. Adequate quality. Problems were identified; however, contractor usually took adequate corrective action. OR Although performance exceeds expectations and was rated excellent to very good the projects submitted were generally semi-relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Fair probability of success with an average degree of risk in meeting the government's requirements.

2.7.4. Above Average Risk: Performance met some contract requirements. Fair quality. Problems were identified; however, contractor sometimes took corrective action, but not always to the owner’s satisfaction. Performance was current and generally very relevant to semi-relevant. Fair probability of success with an overall above average risk in meeting the government's requirements.

2.7.5. High Risk: Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a somewhat serious to serious nature. Contractor's corrective action was sometimes marginally effective to ineffective. Performance was current and generally very relevant to semi- relevant. Probability of success is questionable with an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the government's requirements.

2.7.6. Neutral: No current and/or relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction. Government personnel were unable to identify any relevant Past Performance information for the offeror or key team members/subcontractors or their key personnel. This is neither a negative or positive assessment. Unknown

3. PRICE EVALUATION

3.1. The purpose of the price/cost evaluation is to determine whether an offeror's proposed prices/costs for the project are reasonable and realistic in relation to the solicitation requirements and demonstrate an offeror’s understanding of the proposal requirements. Price is not rated.

3.2. The Government reserves the right to obtain additional information concerning the price (cost) as necessary to obtain a better understanding of the price proposed. No proposal revisions will be allowed under these conditions. Request for such information is for clarification purposes only. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions.

3.3. The Government will conduct a price/cost evaluation of each offeror's proposal to determine whether or not each proposal complies with the stated criteria: "Reasonableness" and Realism". Those proposals evaluated as not satisfying all of the price/cost criteria may be eliminated from further consideration unless the Contracting Officer determines:

3.3.1. A minor clerical error has occurred, in which case the offeror may be given an opportunity to correct the minor error within the constraints of the "clarifications" process or

3.3.2. The Contracting Officer determines discussions are required.

3.4. Reasonableness of an offeror's proposal is evaluated through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(1) and (4). For cost (Price) to be reasonable, it must represent a cost (Price) that provides value to the Government when consideration is given to prices in the market and functional capabilities of the offeror.

3.5. Realism is evaluated by assessing the compatibility of proposed costs with proposal scope and effort. For cost (Price) to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort if the offeror operates with reasonable economy and efficiency. Proposals unrealistically high or low in price, when compared to the Government estimate, and market conditions evidenced by other competitive proposals received, may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in proposal rejection without discussion. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between proposed performance and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches or conditions are the basis for an unbalanced/inconsistently priced proposal, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of cost (Price) realism rests solely with the offeror.

3.6. Discounts: Prompt payment discounts will not be considered in the evaluation of offers. However, any offered discount will form part of the award, and will be taken if payment is made within the discount period indicated in the offer by the offeror. As an alternative to offering a prompt payment discount in conjunction with the offer, offerors awarded contracts may include prompt payment discounts on individual invoices.

3.7. Reserved

3.8. In the event the Government does not award a contract pursuant to this solicitation within ninety (90) calendar days after receipt of proposals and award will be made without discussions, the following will apply:

3.8.1. “The Government reserves the right to allow offerors to make an adjustment in their price proposals to allow pricing adjustments caused by fluctuating construction material market conditions. The Contracting Officer will notify Offerors, normally by electronic mail (email) of a common closing date for receipt of the adjusted price proposals. No additional proposal revisions will be allowed under these conditions. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions.”

3.9 In the event the current prevailing Wage Determination is changed by the Department of Labor after the closing date of this solicitation, the updated Wage Determination will be incorporated by amendment and issued to all offerors that have not been eliminated from the competition. If applicable, these offerors/contractors will be given a reasonable opportunity to provide revised proposals solely to amend proposals due to Wage Determination changes. This does not constitute and shall not be construed as discussions if award without discussions is contemplated.

4. RESERVED

5. AWARD and DEBRIEFINGS

5.1. Award: A written award or acceptance of offer mailed, or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer shall be deemed to result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

5.2. Debriefings

5.2.1. Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.505.

5.2.2. After award, unsuccessful offerors may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.506.

5.2.2.1. Written requests for debriefing will not be accepted by facsimile or email. Submitted means delivered to the Contracting Officer at the location indicated on the SF 1442 for receipt of proposals.

End of Section 00120