LPTA_Sec_120.pdf

SECTION 00120

SECTION 00120 PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS 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 a qualified Small Business Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to all the RFP's requirements and is judged to represent the Best Value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation scheme set out in this solicitation. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors in the solicitation. Best value is expected to result from selection of the lowest evaluated price, with acceptable past/ present performance.

1.2. To arrive at a Best Value decision, this acquisition will utilize the FAR Part 15.305 Proposal Evaluation. 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.

1.3. The source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 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/present performance and/or pricing 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 begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals for determination of basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators. Failure to provide a complete proposal may result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award. Failure to address any factor Past/Present Performance, and Price shall be grounds for elimination from evaluation and consideration for award.

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

1.6. Although the assessment of Past/Present Performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9, Past/Present 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. Requests 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, in his/her sole discretion, later determines them to be necessary or appropriate. Further, the Government reserves the right to create or not to create a competitive range.

1.8. ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL: The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. 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 shall require prior Contracting Officer's approval.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.1. The evaluation factors are (1) Past/Present Performance and (2) Price. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past/Present Performance and Price as set out in the solicitation. In terms of the relative importance of the factors, Present/ Past Performance is equal to the Price Factor.

The firm that represents the best value to the Government will be selected for award in accordance with FAR 15.1

Source Selection Processes and Techniques.

2.1.1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is to determine the acceptability of the response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in order to meet the acceptability standards described in the RFP.

2.2. PAST/PRESENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

2.2.1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Plans and Specifications. The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror's record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The Past/Present 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 Past/Present Performance Sub-factors, elements and other considerations. Past/Present Performance includes current/on-going (present) performance complete to 70% percent. Projects currently in progress for the National Guard will also be considered regardless of percentage complete. 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; from any 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), or other databases; (3) interviews with Program/Project Managers, Contracting Officers or 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 contract and the offeror's corrective actions. The Government reserves the rights to obtain and evaluate past performance information from any source it deems appropriate.

2.2.2. The evaluation may take into account Past/Present 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.

2.2.3. An offeror with no relevant Past/Present Performance may receive a rating based on the evaluation of its predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors provided the offeror clearly states in the proposal that the information provided about predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors is for the purposes of enhancing the offerors past performance proposal. These ratings may not have the same weight as the ratings of the proposing company. The weight that will be afforded for this type of past performance is within the sole discretion of the Government. 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/Present 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.

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

2.2.4. 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/present performance information and adverse past/present performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond or to resolve minor clerical errors.

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

2.2.5 “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.

2.2.5.1. The Government may also consider similarity of the client type (e.g. federal government) and/or the projects sustainability requirements. The Government will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® certification achievements. The location at which work was performed to the location(s) at which work will be performed will also be considered. Relevancy will affect an offeror’s overall Past Performance rating.

2.2.5.2. In assessing “relevancy” of an offeror’s previous contracts the Government may evaluate an offeror’s past performance for similarity of the construction methods, size, 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 (e.g. federal government) and/or the projects sustainability requirements. ANG projects will consider United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED®. The location at which work was performed may also be considered.

Relevancy weight will affect offeror’s overall Past Performance Confidence rating. The more relevant the project is weighted the greater confidence there will be in the past performance assessment as a predictor of future performance.

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

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

2.2.6.2. RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.2.6.3. SOMEWHAT RELEVANT- Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.2.6.4. NOT RELEVANT - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.2.7. Past Performance Sub-factors. There are five (5) sub-factors as listed below. An overall evaluation for Past Performance will be at the factor level.

• Quality Control

• Timely Performance

• Management Effectiveness

• Compliance with Safety Standards

• Compliance with Federal laws and regulations

2.2.8. The elements that may be considered under each subfactor are described below:

2.2.8.1. 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”.

2.2.8.2. 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.

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

2.2.8.3.1. 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; Overall customer satisfaction and willingness to foster a spirit of partnership with owner. This is a critical element in this subfactor.

2.2.8.3.2 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;

2.2.8.3.3. 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.

2.2.8.3.4. 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.

2.2.8.4 Compliance with Safety Standards: Evaluators may consider such things as: Adequacy of implementation of safety plan; acceptable safety history; and the Experience Modification Rate (EMR) provided on Exhibit A, Part 2, paragraph 2E. An EMR over 1.0 may receive less favorable consideration.

2.2.8.5 Compliance with Federal laws and regulations: Evaluators may consider such things as: Compliance with labor laws and regulations with specific attention to Construction Wage Rate Requirements 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 Execute Order 16393—Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade.

2.2.9. The following ratings and related definitions will be used to define the performance confidence assessment.

Based on the evaluation results, the evaluators will assign the Past Performance factor one of the ratings as defined below.

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

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown. (See note above)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3. PRICE EVALUATION

3.1. This contract is a firm fixed price contract. Price is not rated. The purpose of the price/cost evaluation is to determine whether an offeror's proposed prices/costs for the project are determined to be fair and reasonable in comparison to the competition, the current market conditions and/or recent prices for the same or similar requirements. 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).

3.2. All offers will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)). Offers may be rejected if it is determined the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.3 The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high or unrealistically low (an indication of a “buy-in”) may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

3.4. 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. If 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 the Contracting Officer in his/her sole discretion later determines discussions to be necessary or appropriate.

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

3.5.1 The Government reserves the right to allow offerors to make an adjustment in their price proposals to accommodate cost changes 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. If 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 the Contracting Officer in his/her sole discretion later determines discussions to be necessary or appropriate.

3.6. 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. AWARD and DEBRIEFINGS

4.1. 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.

4.2. Debriefings

4.2.1. 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.

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

End of Section 00120