Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_09May14.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made using DoD Source Selection procedures. A best value trade-off process will be utilized with non-price and price factors. Technical approach, past performance, key personnel, and management/organization approach (in decreasing order of importance) will be the non-price evaluation factors due to the highly specialized nature of the material (beryllium) at the site. The non-price factors, when combined are significantly more important than the price. Each factor will assist the Government to ensure the selected Offeror meets the program goal – to safely and efficiently remediate the Luckey Site in accordance with the Record of Decision. At a minimum, each factor must be rated “Acceptable” or “Satisfactory/Unknown Confidence” in order for an Offeror to be eligible for award. The evaluation factors are as follows:

Table 1. Evaluation Factors & Relative Importance

Factor/Sub-Factor Relative Importance to Other

Factors Sub-Factor Relative Importance

I. Technical Approach Most Important All Sub-Factors in Factor are of equal importance

II. Past Performance Less importance than Factor I, more important than Factors III, IV, & V

No Sub-Factors

III. Key Personnel Less importance than Factors I & II, more important than Factors IV and V

No Sub-Factors

IV. Organization Approach/Management Plan

Less importance than Factors I, II, & III, more important than Factors V

No Sub-Factors

V. Price Less importance than Factors I,II,III, &IV.

No Sub-Factors

2.0 FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

I. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL APPROACH

Sub-Factor Title

1. Conceptual Approach

2. Safety/Quality Assurance Approach

3. Conceptual Plan for Remediation Completion

II. FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor II Past Performance – Quality, Schedule, Customer Satisfaction, Management /Personnel/Labor, Financial Management, Safety, and General

III. FACTOR III - KEY PERSONNEL

Factor III Specialized Experience of Key Personnel and Personnel/Experience Matrix

IV. FACTOR IV –ORGANIZATION APPROACH/MANAGEMENT PLAN

Factor IIV Organization Approach and Management Plan

V. FACTOR V – PRICE

Factor V Price

3.0 EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a Government Source Selection Team (SST).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements; and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposal approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the requirements within the required period of performance.

c. Material to Be Reviewed. Selection of the successful Offerors shall be based on the proposal submitted except that past performance information from any other sources may also be considered consistent with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii). The SST will not consider any information or data incorporated by reference or otherwise referred to. All information requested will be considered unless the Offeror exceeds the page limit parameters. If exceeded, excess pages will not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal. The Government is not responsible for the information overlooked during the evaluation which is not located in appropriate proposal section. References to sections of the proposal shall be by specific paragraph number (and name, if applicable), page number, and section.

Additionally for the purposes of this evaluation the Government SST defines the Offerors Proposed Team as any Contractor, Prime Contractor/Subcontractors, or Joint Venture.

The Technical Factors or non-cost Factors are Factor I, Technical Approach; Factor III, Key Personnel;

and Factor IV, Management/Organization Approach. Factor II, Past Performance is a non-cost Factor but has a separate rating system which is discussed below. The Technical Factor Ratings in Table 2 below focus on the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating will indicate how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

The Government will assign separate color ratings to each of the three sub-factors of Factor I. Sub-factor ratings for Factor I shall be rolled up into an overall rating for that factor.

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh and weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

3.1 Volume I, Factor I – Technical Approach

This factor is divided into the following sub-factors:

3.1.1 Volume I, Factor I, Sub-factor 1 – Conceptual Approach

This sub-factor evaluates the Offeror’s conceptual approach specific to this Indefinite Delivery. Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) SATOC based on the Offerors proposed team and the proposed team’s expertise to meet the requirements of the Scope of Work (SOW) included in Section J.

Requirements: The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s proposal meets the submission requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and technical requirements of the the SOW (Section J).

The proposal shall address the Offeror’s proposed conceptual approach to Luckey Soils Remediation including but not limited to:

• Beryllium Safety and Health Physics

• Beryllium impacted structure decontamination and demolition

• Beryllium impacted soils, fill, and debris remediation

• Air monitoring plan and dust controls

• Proposed technologies to address hazards/waste materials at Luckey

• Mobilization and certification of on-site laboratory facilities

• Schedule

• Descriptions of proposed day to day operations of on-site laboratory facilities

• Descriptions of proposed capabilities/limitation regarding project execution in adverse and seasonal weather conditions

Evaluation: The Offeror’s proposed team’s approach to environmental remediation in cost reimbursable construction remediation project to include decontamination, demolition; shoring; water management and waste water processing; excavation and handling of beryllium, lead, and radionuclide impacted soils and debris will be evaluated. Also this sub-factor will be evaluated for content that clearly illustrates the proposed conceptual approach to in-situ and ex-situ analysis, application of technologies to address hazards and waste materials/forms similar to those at Luckey, and setup, certification and operation of on-site laboratory facilities will be evaluated. Use of innovation technologies to address hazards, waste materials at Luckey may be evaluated more favorably.

The Offeror’s schedule will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s understanding of all activities associated with design and construction of all project features. The Offeror’s capability to complete the contract within the proposed contract duration and the validity of the proposed schedule may be evaluated more favorably. Proposals that demonstrate an ability to significantly reduce the construction duration must include supporting documentation providing strong evidence that the schedule is realistic and achievable. Proposals that describe viable options to overcome the issue of adverse weather and seasonal execution of site remediation including retention personnel expertise may be evaluated more favorably.

The Government reserves the right to accept or decline any deviation from the proposed schedule defining work shifts and number of day per week.

3.1.2 Volume I, Factor I, Sub-factor 2 –Safety/Quality Assurance Approach

Requirements: The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s proposal meets the submission requirements of the RFP and the SOW (Section J) and demonstrates the Offeror’s approach to work planning and preparation, readiness evaluation and project execution. This shall include integration, consideration and cooperation among all functional organizations and effective and comprehensive Corporate Quality Assurance Program with lines of communication to Contractor Executive Management independent from Operations. The QA Program Manager on-site shall have direct and unfettered access to the Corporate QA Manager and Executive Management, with the authority to execute QA Program requirements on-site. The QA Program shall fully independent from all other site functions/organizations.

Evaluation: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed team’s approach to the remediation of the Luckey Site. Key features to be included in the evaluation include:

• Work planning and preparation

• Hazards identification

• Integrated safety analysis (or similar), including hazard mitigation, minimization and controls

• Environmental management including liquid and airborne effluent monitoring

• Waste minimization, characterization, packaging, storage, transport and/or disposal

• Quality Assurance

• Communications and reporting

3.1.3 Volume I, Factor I, Sub-factor 3 – Conceptual Plan for Remediation Completion

This sub-factor evaluates the Offerors conceptual approach specific to this SATOC based on proposed team and the proposed team’s expertise.

Requirements: The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s proposal meets the submission requirements of the RFP technical requirements of the SOW and demonstrates a conceptual plan for proposed remediation completion via final status survey packages leading to achieving ROD criteria for the Luckey site.

Evaluation: Illustration and demonstration of the Offerors proposed team’s approach to achieving ROD criteria for the Luckey site. Content will be evaluated for clarity and completeness. Concepts of how impacted soils and waste will be removed and disposed of off-site will be evaluated. Discussion/concepts of how verification of compliance with soil cleanup goals will be evaluated.

3.2 Volume II, Factor II – Past Performance

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s and team member’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts described in the SOW (Section J).

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's and team member’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying the services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror’s team after evaluating the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or past performance history so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment can reasonably be assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) submitted with the proposal and received from the Offeror’s and its team member’s clients. The Government may contact and interview points of contact on the PPQs. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the listed references, if the listed reference is not available. In addition to the PPQs, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) database and the Architect- Engineer Contractor Appraisal Support System (ACASS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary /affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

The Government will focus on past performance information relevant to the requirements in the SOW and demonstrating conformance to contract specifications, standards of workmanship, adherence to contract schedules, a history of reasonable and cooperative behavior with regulators and other stakeholders, a commitment to customer satisfaction, and a history of commitment to relevant small business participation and/or history of substantive self performance as a small business. Past performance information demonstrating the following will be considered strengths:

Requirement: All Offerors will be evaluated on relatively current past performance for the past ten (10) years. The following shall evidence small business participation and past performance:

Evaluation: The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s demonstrates its specialized experience including:

• Demonstrated Prime/Subcontractor or Joint Ventures successfully working together on projects with hazards/issues with the same size , scope and complexity as the Luckey site may evaluated more favorably over those that do not have that experience.

• Demonstrated implementation of Army Regulations and Engineer Manuals, 29 CFR, 49 CFR, 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 40, 70 and 74 (or DOE equivalents) including applicable standards and regulatory guides.

• Demonstrated development and implementation of occupational safety and health, radiation safety, quality assurance, training, and waste management/ disposal plans and/or programs. OSH experience shall include Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program consistent with 10 CFR 850 and applicable DOE standards and guides.

• Demonstrated planning, preparation and execution of remediation activities with hazards and materials similar to the Luckey Site, and in close proximity to agricultural/residential areas.

• Identification and use of waste disposal options appropriate for the waste types, concentrations and forms similar to those anticipated for the Luckey Site.

Using the Form PPQ-0 (Attachment 2) categories of Quality, Schedule, Customer Satisfaction, Management/Personnel/Labor/, Safety, and General will be assessed. Additionally the Government may evaluate past performance using other sources including but not limited to the Performance Information Retrieval System (PIPRS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) using CAGE/DUNS numbers of the Offerors. Positive evaluations of the PPQ-0 may be evaluated more favorably. Positive Past Performances of demonstrated experiences may be viewed more favorably. If a Joint Venture is proposed, relevant (similar size, scope¸ complexity) past performance as a joint venture or partnership as is now being proposed may be evaluated more favorably. In the case of an Offeror that does not have a record of relevant (similar size, scope¸ complexity) past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. There will be two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

Relevancy: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service and support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting and teaming. Each past performance effort will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in Table 3:

Table 3. 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. Relevant Past performance effort involved similar 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.

Performance Confidence Assessment: For each past performance effort, the Government will then evaluate how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, the Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 4. The Offeror’s past performance effort will be considered recent if the project is at least 75% complete and the majority of the work was performed within the last five years.

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s and team member’s recent and 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 and team member’s recent and relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s and team member’s recent and 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 and team member’s recent and relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

No recent and relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s and team member’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

3.3 Volume III, Factor III – Key Personnel:

This factor evaluates the specialized experience of the Offeror’s proposed key personnel and the proposed key personnel have the experience and technical competence related to the type of work to be completed under this SATOC. Additionally, this factor evaluates proposed key personnel listed in response to the SOW (Section J) relative to contracts provided in examples, past performance (Factor II) and the type of work to be completed under this SATOC.

Requirements: The Government will evaluate how well the provided resumes meet the submission requirements in RFP, and how well they demonstrate that the Offeror’s proposed key personnel meet the requirements listed in the SOW. Additionally, the Offeror shall provide matrix representation of Experience (contracts) vs. Proposed Personnel.

Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the adequacy and strength of the key personnel’s experience.

Individuals who have made significant contributions to the successful performance of contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity within the past 5 years may be evaluated more favorably. Experience of the personnel identified for this contract on contracts cited by the Offeror may be evaluated more favorably.

Individual resumes that exceed the minimum requirements in the specifications or who show recent experience on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity may be evaluated more favorably.

Contractors/subcontractor or Joint Ventures that proposes personnel with recent and relevant experience may be evaluated more favorably.

3.4 Volume IV, Factor IV–Organization Approach/Management Plan

This factor evaluates the proposed organization approach and management plan and how they demonstrate the type of work to be completed under this SATOC.

Requirements: The Government will evaluate how well the issues and questions set out in the RFP are addressed in Organizational Approach narrative and organization chart; and the Management Plan. The

Organizational Approach and the Management Plan will be given equal weight.

Evaluation: The evaluation will specifically verify the following:

• That the work load will be properly managed between the Prime Contractor (the Offeror) and its team members if key personnel are not employed by the Prime Contractor.

• That lines of authority allow the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) to shut down the site work when health and safety becomes an issue.

The Offeror’s and its team member’s organization and management approach will be evaluated based on the narrative, organizational chart, and management plan submitted. It is expected that the organizational and management approach will demonstrate the following:

• Organizational structures that have demonstrated efficiency in day-to-day operations maximizing benefit to the Government by exceeding contract milestone schedules, quick resolution of problems, clear roles and responsibilities, excellent communication networks, etc.

o Successful organizational relationships that have been used on other projects.

o Successful organizational structures that demonstrate tangible benefits resulting in greater customer satisfaction.

o Thorough description of the relationship and contractual agreements with the Offeror and its team members.

o Extensive experience in the use of earned value.

• The Contractor shall demonstrate effective and timely communications internal to the project organization and to the USACE. In addition to routine communications and reporting, the Contractor shall demonstrate effective programs and procedures for event/issue identification and evaluation, prioritization and reporting.

3.5 Volume V, Factor V- Price

The contract will be an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) SATOC with Cost- Reimbursable Task Orders and Firm Fixed Price Task Orders. The Government will perform cost realism analysis for the Offerors’ proposed total cost for the Work Plan Task Order and the two (2) Sample Task Orders provided in Section J. The combined price for the three task orders will be used as the price in the best value trade-off.

The cost realism analysis will independently review and evaluate specific elements of the

Offeror’s proposed total cost estimate for the Work Plan Task Order and the two (2) Sample Task Orders to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed. The cost realism analyses will determine the probable cost of performance for the Offeror. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the total cost of the Work Plan Task Order and the two (2) Sample Task Orders that is most likely to result from the proposal. The probable cost will be determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. In determining probable cost, the following criteria will be used:

(a) The Offeror’s proposed rates, factors, and expenses will be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward-pricing procedures, i.e., negotiated forward-pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors contractors ordinarily utilize in proposals if no negotiated forward-pricing agreement exists.

This includes indirect expense rates, projected rates, and projected expense pools.

(b) The rates and factors shall then be applied to the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the labor hours, travel, and other direct cost factors which shall be proposed to accomplish the required efforts for the Work Plan Task Order and the two (2) Sample Task Orders.

(c) Probable cost shall include a consideration of the evaluated quantitative and qualitative proposal in relation to the costs proposed against that resource mix. Probable cost shall include a comparison of proposed rates with factors, as determined by the Government to be equitable. These factors shall include wage determinations included in this RFP as well as proposed professional compensation plans and average salary and wage rates. The comparison serves as a basis for determining the amount of risk inherent in an Offeror’s proposal.

(d) The Offeror shall ensure that a complete breakdown of costs is provided by major Subcontractors.

Major Subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten percent or more of the proposed effort. A complete evaluation of major Subcontractors’ probable cost will be performed in the same manner as the Offeror’s as defined in paragraphs (a), (b),

(c) and this paragraph.

The Government will review all audit information required by the RFP to determine if the Offeror’s accounting system is adequate for cost-reimbursement contracts. The Government will accept the conclusions of a recent audit completed within one year of proposal submission from the Defense Contract Audit Agency or another Federal Government cognizant audit agency.

Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, will not be evaluated, but must be completed in order to become eligible for award. The SF33 shall be filled out completely by the Offeror and signed by an official that is authorized to bind the company. The Offeror shall also acknowledge all amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30, if applicable.

The representations and certifications in Section K will not be evaluated; however, must be completed in order to be eligible for award. Annual Representations and Certifications will be obtained through the Government On-line Representation and Certification Application (ORCA) site for contractors that have worked with the Government and are registered in CCR (Central Contractor Registration). All contractors that do not have previous Government experience or are not registered in CCR must submit the information in accordance with FAR clause 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications. All Offerors are reminded that USACE is a Department of Defense component, so both the FAR and DFARS representations and certifications must be completed.