W912P926RA001 Attachment 0004 - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD.pdf

CUI

Controlled by: Army Controlled by: USACE-MVS-CT

CUI Category: SSEL Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

POC: Whitney Dee, 314-331-8621

Section 00 22 16 – Supplemental Instruction to Proposers

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section 00 22 16 Appendices:

Appendix F – Small Business Participation Commitment Progress Quarterly Report

A. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with FAR 9.103, contracts shall be awarded to responsible prospective contractors only. This includes the requirement that no award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility, including, when necessary, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors. To be determined a responsible contractor, Offerors must meet the following general standards IAW FAR 9.104-1:

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 (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 – Construction Approach, Factor 2 – Past Performance, Factor 3 – Small Business Participation, and Factor 4 – Price.

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

Factors 1 and 2 are equally important and are more important than Factor 3.

Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are equally as important as Factor 4.

3. Award will be made based on Subjective Best Value, using the tradeoff process for proposals in accordance with FAR 15.103-1 and FAR subpart 15.2. 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. Be advised any portion of the technical proposal can be incorporated into the contract by reference at award.

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 – Construction Approach

Volume I – Factor 2 – Past Performance

Volume II – Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Commitment

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

2. Volume I, Factor 1 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.

TABLE 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding

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

Good

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

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

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

TABLE 2 – Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

3. Volume I, Factor 2 - Past Performance 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.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

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

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

TABLE 4 - 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. Volume II, Factor 3 Small Business Participation will receive a rating in accordance with the table below, based on the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum small business requirements.

TABLE 5 – Small Business Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5. 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 00 21 16) 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.

6. 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 increases 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 – CONSTRUCTION APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of each section of the offeror’s construction approach and understanding of the requirements for successful execution of this project and establish a technical/risk rating. Proposals with thorough, detailed, and complete narratives demonstrating the offeror’s understanding of the complexity of the project, importance of developing a logical sequence of work and risks associated with completing the work may be evaluated more favorably. Construction approach must demonstrate an understanding that will lead to successful completion of work associated with this solicitation.

SITE LAYOUT AND LOGISTICS:

The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s understanding and ability to overcome the complexities of the physical site constraints based on the proposed narrative and plan drawing. Thorough, logical, and complete narratives and plan drawing(s) that identify and address logistical constraints may be evaluated more favorably. A clear, thorough understanding of mitigating risk due to the weather and environmental risks associated with the Mississippi River may be evaluated more favorably.

UNDERWATER EXCAVATION AND DREDGING:

The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach for successfully performing complex underwater excavation and dredging operations. The Government shall also evaluate the offeror’s plan for managing the associated materials and site conditions. A complete narrative that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the challenges of working at significant depths in a riverine environment and proposes a sound, efficient, and low-risk methodology may be evaluated more favorably.

SEPARATOR WALL INSTALLATION:

The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s ability to safely and efficiently execute the structural and logistical elements of marine construction. Additionally, the Government shall evaluate the offeror’s approach to sequencing the in-water work and coordinating with active navigation. A complete narrative that demonstrates a deep understanding of the complexities of building heavy structures from a floating plant in a dynamic river environment may be evaluated more favorably.

SCHEDULE:

The Government shall evaluate the schedule for completeness, thoroughness, and a logical sequence of work. A narrative that clearly demonstrates understanding of the work based on activities presented, durations, and critical path items may be rated more favorably. Additionally, a reasonable and logical relationship between activities may be evaluated more favorably.

E. EVALUATION OF VOLUME I – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Plans & Specifications.

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

The Government shall evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of the Offeror’s experience as described in the proposal and assign a single confidence rating based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified. Well-documented performance and completion, or significant completion (50% or more complete), of projects within the past five (5) years from issuance of the solicitation, as opposed to the required fifteen (15) years, that are similar in scope and magnitude to this project may be evaluated more favorably. Any one project demonstrating experience in more than three (3) of the key scope areas referenced in Section 00 21 16, Tab B may be evaluated more favorably by the Government. If it can be demonstrated that the project was completed on time the project may be evaluated more favorably. Submitted projects must have been performed by the Offeror as either the prime contractor or major subcontractor (completing 10% or more of any single project) to be considered relevant. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer. Projects that more closely reflect the full project scope in complexity and value, to include projects with considerably higher dollar values, projects that reflect more considerable effort in more than three (3) of the five (5) criteria in Section L, Tab B, or projects that considerably complex experience with those factors may be evaluated more favorably.

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 fifteen 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.

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 fifteen (15) 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 15.202(c)(1)). 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 in 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 pertains 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 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 within the last fifteen (15) 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 seven (7) relevancy areas will be evaluated as more relevant than proposals that do not provide information in all 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.

If the offeror proposes the combining of two (2) or more companies, known as a Joint Venture (JV), for the purpose of this RFP, the JV will be evaluated as a single offeror.

The experience of each JV partner will be evaluated based on each partner’s role in cited past work and in the proposed JV role for this project.

The Government shall assign a confidence rating to each offeror based on the degree of successful performance of all recent and relevant projects identified in the proposal.

The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess owner satisfaction. The Government also reserves the right to not contact the references provided. The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Dun & Bradstreet, etc. or any other relevant information to assist in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, however, the responsibility of providing past performance information rests with the offeror.

The Government shall evaluate recent and relevant past performance to assess the degree of performance risk involved in accepting each offeror’s proposal. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will perform the work.

F. EVALUATION OF VOLUME II – FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) shall be based on the Offeror’s best effort to meet the Small Business Participation target of 25% of the total subcontracting value. The total subcontracting value is equal to the percentage of all planned subcontracting dollars.

Offerors unable to meet the minimum overall small business target of 25% of its total subcontracts shall provide an explanation of why this target cannot be met with their proposal. The Offeror’s proposed SBPCD will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

1. The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms The extent to which the small business programs listed in FAR 19 (small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned small business, HUBZone, service-disabled veteran owned small business, etc.) are specifically identified in the SBPCD.

2. The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms. Describe what types of commitments, if any, are in place for this specific acquisition (small business prime, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, joint ventures, mentor-protégé, teaming agreements, partnership letters of commitment(s), etc.). Provide documentation regarding commitments to small businesses for this effort. Copies of such agreements should be provided as part of the SBPCD and will not count against the page limitation for the binder.

3. Identification of the type, complexity, and variety of the work small business firms are to perform on this acquisition.

4. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation.

5. Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

6. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the total subcontracting value.

7. The Government shall evaluate the proposal to determine which offeror proposes the best value in terms of Small Business Participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document shall be organized as follows:

1. Prime Contractor type of business (check all that apply):

( ) Large ( ) Small (also check type of small business) ( ) Small Non-Disadvantaged Business ( ) Small Disadvantaged Business ( ) Woman-Owned Small Business ( ) HUBZone Small Business ( ) Veteran-Owned Small Business ( ) Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business

2. Percentage of your participation as a prime contractor: _____________ %

NOTE: Small Business primes’ self-performance counts as Small Business Participation, and small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and/or through subcontracting to other small businesses.

3. Percentage of total subcontracting value of subcontracts planned for:

TABLE 6 – Percentage of Total Subcontracting Value of Subcontracts Planned % of Total Subcontracts

Value Dollar Value

Total Percentage planned for Other than Small Businesses % $

Total Percentage planned for Small Business(es) % $

Small Disadvantaged Business % $ HUBZone Small Business % $ Women-Owned Small Business % $ Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB % $ Veteran-Owned Small Business % $

Each percentage above shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding individual commitments. The Government will evaluate dollars, not just percentages alone.

Small business prime offerors may achieve small business participation (meet or exceed 25% of the total subcontracting value) through their own performance/participation as a prime and through subcontracting to other small businesses. All offerors are required to submit Small Business Participation Commitment Documents in accordance with the instructions in Section 00 21 16. Small business participation commitments will become requirements and be incorporated into the resulting contract.

Offerors whose proposals meet the 25% small business participation requirement and who have an aggressive plan for socio-economic small business category goals will be rated higher than those that meet the 25% small business participation requirement and do not include aggressive socio-economic small business category goals.

A Quarterly Report will be due to the Small Business Specialist to monitor the progress to meet the commitment of the Small Business Commitment Document. The format for the report will be in (Appendix F). Liquidated damages will be assessed if the Small Business Commitment Document is not met, in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-16.

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

OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS, AMENDMENTS, PRICING SCHEDULE

AND REPRESENTATIONS & CERTIFICATIONS, PROJECT LABOR

AGREEMENTS)

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 Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs). The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. During this process offerors may have to provide additional information supporting their CLINs, elements, 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.

An offer provided without a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) in accordance with FAR Clause 52.222-33 and 52.222-34 will not be considered for award. Submitted PLAs will be reviewed for compliance with FAR 52.222-33 and all statutes, regulations, Executive Orders, and agency/ contract requirements. At a minimum, as stated in FAR 52.222-33, the PLA must:

a. Bind the Offeror and Subcontractors engaged in construction on the construction project to comply with the project labor agreement;

b. Allow the Offeror and all Subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts without regard to whether they are otherwise parties to collective bargaining agreements;

c. Contain guarantees against strikes, lockouts, and similar job disruptions;

d. Set forth effective, prompt, and mutually binding procedures for resolving labor disputes arising during the term of the project labor agreement;

e. Provide other mechanisms for labor-management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern, including productivity, quality of work, safety, and health.

Award can only be made to an offeror with a PLA that is fully compliant with the contract requirements. Offerors not submitting a required PLA will not be eligible for award.

This source selection will result in award of Firm Fixed Price Construction contract.

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