W912P920R0060 - Attachment 2 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with FAR 9.103, no contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR 9.104-1 requirement that no award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined a responsible contractor, Offerors must meet the following general standards:

a. Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them.

b. Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule taking into consideration all existing commercial and Governmental business commitments.

c. Have a satisfactory performance record.

d. Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

e. Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them.

f. Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them.

g. Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

B. BASIS OF AWARD

1. Award will be made based on the best overall (i.e. subjective best value trade-off) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Factor 1 – Resource Plan, Factor 2 – Company Experience, Factor 3 – Past Performance, and Factor 4 – Price.

2. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-cost factors. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not be made to the lowest price offered.

Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factors 2 and 3 combined.

Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are slightly more important than price.

3. Award will be made based on Subjective Best Value, using the tradeoff process for proposals in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and FAR subpart 15.3. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and it is reasonably determined that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

4. The failure of a proposal to meet any of the three (3) non-cost factors will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that Offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.

5. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the solicitation will be considered unacceptable.

6. Offerors may NOT be credited with the past performance of a separate corporation, whether that of a parent, affiliate or subsidiary, unless the proposal clearly establishes that the resources of those companies will be available for performance on the contract to be awarded.

7. The contracting officer will begin the evaluation process by conducting a proposal compliance review for all timely-received proposals to determine basic proposal adequacy prior to providing the proposals to the evaluators (the Source Selection Evaluation Board). Failure to provide a complete proposal will result in the proposal being removed from further consideration for award.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

1. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based up on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors listed below:

Volume I – Factor 1 – Resource Plan

Volume I – Factor 2 – Company Experience

Volume I – Factor 3 – Past Performance

Volume II – Factor 4 – Price (Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Amendments, Bid Schedule, and Representations & Certifications)

2. Volume I, Factors 1 and 2 will receive one of five ratings, in accordance with the following tables.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Definition Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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 measurements, 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Definition Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase cost of degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3. Volume I, Factor 3 will receive ratings in accordance with the tables below, based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATINGS

Rating Definition 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.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

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 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.

4. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors are as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the Proposal Submission (Section L) of the solicitation.

b. Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which: 1) the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable, 2) successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques, and 3) the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposal tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

5. Definitions:

a. Rating – The adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-cost/price factors and corresponding subfactors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Technical factor and subfactor ratings will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

b. Technical Rating Evaluation Processes – The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

c. Trade-Off Ratings – The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the tables above in section C. 2.

d. Significant Strength – an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

e. Strength – an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

f. Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

g. Significant Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

h. Deficiency – a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

i. Uncertainty – any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

j. Adverse Past Performance – past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

D. EVALUATION OF VOLUME I – FACTOR 1 – RESOURCE PLAN

The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the offeror’s Resource Plan to determine the offeror’s technical capability and resources to perform project work in an efficient, quality, and safe manner.

Subfactor 1.a. The Government will evaluate the feasibility for successful execution of this project based on the minimum qualifications of key personnel proposed for this requirement, and how well the proposal demonstrates that the offeror’s key personnel meet or exceed the minimum qualifications required to perform the work under this solicitation. The evaluation of key personnel will focus on minimum qualifications necessary to provide quality installation of features, quality control, safety, scheduling and general construction management. Minimum qualifications for key personnel that include state or professional licensure or a minimum of five (5) years relevant experience shall be rated higher.

Subfactor 1.b. Proposals with thorough, detailed, and complete narratives, work plans, and equipment lists will be rated more highly than a narrative not providing detail or discussion of the offeror’s proposed means and methods to accomplish the work. The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the offeror’s means and methods including the sequence of events for completing the work and risk mitigation measures.

Higher evaluation ratings will be given to detailed resource plans that demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the complexity of the project, importance of developing a logical sequence of work, and risks associated with completing and protecting work in a stream setting.

Subfactor 1.c. Higher evaluation ratings will be given for those proposals intending to self-perform or providing letters of commitment from identified subcontractors.

Incomplete submissions may not be considered.

E. EVALUATION OF VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – COMPANY EXPERIENCE

The government will evaluate the viability and capability of experience proposed by the offeror in assessing the offeror’s ability to perform this requirement. The offeror’s company experience will be evaluated based on the direct relevancy to the plans and specifications. Evaluation ratings will be based on the comprehensiveness of the offeror’s relevant experience as it relates to construction within small- and mid-size streams subject to flash-flooding, earthwork, temporary flow diversion features, installation of stone bank stabilization features, installation of temporary erosion control fabric, and harvesting and installation of live and dead vegetative bank stabilization features. Higher evaluation ratings will be given to offerors who demonstrate a greater number of completed construction features similar to those in the Plans and Specifications for this project.

F. EVALUATION OF VOLUME I – FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

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 Scope of Work.

Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider past performance information obtained from other sources, the responsibility of proving past performance information rests with the offeror.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten percent (10%) or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts within the past five (5) years in their proposal.

The Offeror shall demonstrate relevant past performance or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is performance under contracts or efforts within the past five years (recency) that is of the same or similar scope, complexity, and magnitude to that which is described in the solicitation. A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) should be submitted for each project the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 2 - Company Experience.

Please see Section L Factor 3, Past Performance for additional information on Past Performance Questionnaires.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local Government or commercial contracts for same or similar contracts. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five (5) years prior to the issue date of the solicitation.

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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results 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.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

Recency & Relevancy – The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Therefore, the solicitation has established the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement being procured. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

Recency – expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The base standard for recent work under this solicitation is considered to be within the last five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

Relevancy – same or similar scope, complexity, magnitude, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming to that which is described in this solicitation.

Note: providing information in all six relevancy areas will be evaluated as more relevant than proposals that do not provide information in all six areas.

Quality – The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

G. EVALUATION OF VOLUME II – FACTOR 4 – PRICE (SOLICITATION, OFFER

AND AWARD DOCUMENTS, AMENDMENTS, BID SCHEDULE AND

REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS)

Price will be evaluated and considered, but will not be scored or combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. Price reasonableness will be determined in accordance with techniques in FAR 15.404-1. Such determination will be made to ensure the offeror’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable considering quality, delivery, and other factors. Price realism will be utilized to determine if the offeror’s proposed prices are too low, indicate a misunderstanding of the requirements, or there is unbalanced pricing between CLINs. The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. During this process offerors may have to provide additional information supporting their Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), element, or total price. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis and will be considered a performance risk.

This source selection will result in award of a firm fixed price contract.

Offeror must sign the Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and all amendments.