Amendment_06_-_Revised_Section_M_-_17MAR2016.pdf

W912PL-16-R-0011

Amendment 06 March 17, 2016

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS, SELECTION PROCEDURES, BASIS OF AWARD

1. GENERAL

A. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Corps of Engineers, User/Customer, and other required personnel, will evaluate proposals. Offerors are advised that the technical evaluation and rating of the proposals will be conducted in strict accordance with Section L and Section M of the solicitation. In addition, technical/quality proposals are first reviewed and rated by the SSEB without knowledge of the price offered. The number and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process or to other Offerors. Proposals will be evaluated on the factors described herein. The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process will be used for this acquisition. This process allows the Government to select a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. Reference FAR 15.101-2.

B. Offerors shall include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer. The offeror may not have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions based on initial proposals received; therefore, the proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint.

2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with FAR 1.602-1(b), 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 requirement of FAR 9.103 that no award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must meet the general standards in FAR 9.104-1 and any special standards set forth in the solicitation in accordance with FAR 9.104-2.

3. EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process essentially consists of three parts: proposal compliance review and responsibility determination, technical/quality evaluation, and price evaluation.

A. Proposal Compliance Review: This is an initial review to ensure that all required forms and certifications are completed and that both a technical and price proposal were received.

B. Technical/Quality Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate and rate those proposals passing the first review, above. Proposals will be evaluated against the RFP requirements. Factors will be rated on an “acceptable or non-acceptable” basis.

C. Price Evaluation: The SSEB will evaluate price proposals independent of the technical/quality evaluation.

The SSEB will not have access to price information until completion of the technical/quality evaluation.

The proposed price will be analyzed for reasonableness. It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposals. All offers with separately price line items and/or sub line items will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS

March 17, 2016

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors listed below. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. The Offeror who submits the lowest price proposal with a technically acceptable proposal that has received ratings of “Acceptable” on ALL non-cost factors will be awarded the contract.

Factor Name 1 Technical Approach

2 Organizational Capabilities and Experience

3 Past Performance on Similar Contracts

In order to be considered technically acceptable, proposals must meet ALL of the following requirements listed in the factors below:

Factor 1: Technical Approach The offeror shall present a series of written narratives on how they plan to accomplish specific technical sections of the PWS. These sections are seen as paramount to the success of the contractor and ensuring that there are no service disruptions at any of the Naval Hospital Camp Pendleton facilities.

Technical Approach Evaluation Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Acceptable:

The offeror demonstrates through a written narrative how they will meet the requirements of section 4.2.3.2 of the PWS. An acceptable response will address how to offeror will perform maintenance, testing, operations and repair while meeting the most recent applicable standards established by The Joint Commission as well as other applicable industry medical standards such as NFPA 99 and NFPA 110.

The offeror demonstrates through a written narrative that they can successfully accomplish the phase-in procedure outlined in section 2.21.1 of the PWS and be prepared to respond to any service outages that may occur on the first full day of performance. Key to an acceptable response is demonstrating how they will have a complete understanding of the DMLSS system and its operation by the contract start date.

The offeror demonstrates through a written narrative that they can meet the specified trouble call response times as defined in section 3.4.1.1 of the PWS. An acceptable response will show how the offeror plans to set up a trouble call desk that is staffed 24 hours a day and respond to the three response time categories: Emergency, Urgent and Routine within the designated times.

Unacceptable:

The offeror fails to demonstrate through a written narrative how they will meet the requirements of section 4.2.3.2 of the PWS. An unacceptable response will fail to address how to offeror will perform maintenance, testing, operations and repair while meeting the most recent applicable standards established by The Joint Commission as well as other applicable industry medical standards such as NFPA 99 and NFPA 110.

The offeror fails to demonstrate through a written narrative that they can successfully accomplish the phase-in procedure outlined in section 2.21.1 of the PWS and be prepared to respond to any

March 17, 2016 service outages that may occur on the first full day of performance. Inability to demonstrate how they will have a complete understanding of the DMLSS system and its operation by the contract start date will result in an unacceptable response.

The offeror fails to demonstrate through written narrative that they can meet the specified trouble call response times as defined in section 3.4.1.1 of the PWS. An unacceptable response will fail to show how the offeror plans to set up a trouble call desk and respond to the three response time categories: Emergency, Urgent and Routine within the designated times.

Factor 2: Experience The Offeror shall submit a two page technical narrative and Appendix D “Project Experience Form” for one project that your organization has substantially completed (80% or more) in the last three (3) years that is most similar to the work detailed in the PWS. Similar work is defined as 24/7 maintenance of a full service hospital facility of 25 beds or more along with its central utility plant, responding to utility disruptions 24/7/365, performing required maintenance on multiple medical facilities simultaneously, responding to emergency service calls, knowledge of all applicable fire codes and successfully maintaining The Joint Commission certification

Experience Evaluation - Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

The offeror has successfully substantially completed (80% or more) at least one project in the last three years most similar to the work described in the PWS and the criteria described above.. Work was substantially completed (80% or more) within the last three years. Project was a hospital facility of at least 25 beds and involved maintaining all building systems and central utility plant.

The offeror has not successfully substantially completed (80% or more) at least one project in the last three years most similar to the work described in the PWS and the criteria described above. Work was not substantially completed (80% or more) within the last three years. Project was not a hospital facility of at least 25 beds and didn’t cover maintaining all building systems and the central utility plant.

Factor 3: Organizational Capabilities:

The offeror shall present all key personnel, equipment and certifications that are necessary to perform the requirements listed in the PWS. The offeror shall also identify all labor skills/categories that will be used during the contract. Specifically the technical ability to meet The Joint Commission certification, National Fire Protection Association requirements and all other work specified in the PWS.

Organizational Capabilities Evaluation - Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

March 17, 2016

The offeror furnishes a complete set of resumes for all personnel listed in section 2.7.1 of the PWS and accompanies it with an organizational chart showing lines of authority.

Program Manager/CHFM – Person is a Certified Healthcare Facility Manager. Person has a bachelor’s degree.

Person has at least ten years of relevant work experience.

Superintendent – Person has at least five (5)ten years of experience working in a hospital setting.

Quality Control Manager – Person is different from the project manager. Person has at least five years of satisfactory work experience preparing and enforcing quality control programs on contracts of similar size and complexity. Person has completed the USACE Construction Quality Management for Contractors and the OSHA 30 Hour Course.

Site Safety Health Officer – Person has at least five years’ experience as a SSHO. Person has completed their OSHA 30 Hour course. Person has completed an average of at least 24 hours of formal safety and health related coursework every four years.

Electrical Supervisor – Person is at a minimum a licensed journeyman electrician. The person has at least ten

(10) years relevant experience and expertise in the installation, repair, troubleshooting , testing and maintenance of the electrical distribution systems associated with medical facilities, and at least five (5) years experience associated with medical facilities at the Journeyman level with experience leading or supervising electrical crews performing work of comparable scope and complexity.

HVAC Supervisor – The person is at a minimum a journeyman level HVAC/R supervisor with at least five years of experience with HVAC/R and DDC controls. The person possess a EPA Universal refrigerant handling license.

The offeror has not successfully furnished a complete set of resumes for all personnel listed in section 2.7.1 of the PWS and accompanied it with an organizational chart showing lines of authority.

Program Manager/CHFM – Person is not a Certified Healthcare Facility Manager. Person does not have a bachelor’s degree. Person does not have at least ten years of relevant work experience.

Superintendent – Person does not have at least ten five (5) years of experience working in a hospital setting.

Quality Control Manager – Person is not different from the project manager. Person does not have at least five years of satisfactory work experience preparing and enforcing quality control programs on contracts of similar size and complexity. Person has not completed the USACE Construction Quality Management for Contractors and the OSHA 30 Hour Course.

Site Safety Health Officer – Person does not have at least five years’ experience as a SSHO. Person has not completed their OSHA 30 Hour course. Person has not completed an average of at least 24 hours of formal safety and health related coursework every four years.

Electrical Supervisor – Person is not at a minimum a licensed journeyman electrician. The person does not have at least ten (10) years relevant experience and expertise in the installation, repair, troubleshooting , testing and maintenance of the electrical distribution systems associated with medical facilities, and at least five (5) years experience associated with medical facilities at the Journeyman level with experience leading or supervising electrical crews performing work of comparable scope and complexity.

March 17, 2016

HVAC Supervisor – The person not at a minimum a journeyman level HVAC/R supervisor with at least five years of experience with HVAC/R and DDC controls. The person does not possess a EPA Universal refrigerant handling license.

Factor 4: Past Performance on Similar Contracts

Offeror will be evaluated on their documented past performance record. The Government will consider Client’s Overall Satisfaction with the Project. A Past Performance Questionnaire to be submitted by the Offeror, filled out by the offeror’s current/former client/customer is included for your use as an Attachment in Section J. The Offeror must provide its client information. The offeror shall submit no more than five projects for past performance qualification review. The Offeror’s Client may be contacted if additional information is needed. Completed Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted with your proposal.

If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ (Attachment in Section J), which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Tom Koponen via email at Tomas.E.Koponen@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date.

Past Performance Evaluation - Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

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.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 4 Standard of Acceptability: This standard is met when the Offeror has demonstrated an overall satisfactory performance evaluation or higher, on similar contracts/projects within functioning, operational Hospital and/or Clinic, completed within the past three years. Past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror may be used. All relevant facts and circumstances gathered from information from the offeror’s listed references and other sources of information available to the Government will be used to evaluate whether the offeror’s overall past performance and quality of performance is acceptable. If an offeror has not had a chance to comment on negative past performance evaluation obtained, it will be given a chance during clarifications. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will be determined to have “unknown” past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” will be given an “acceptable” rating.

The Government may also use past performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the offeror. Information obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database located at http//www.ppirs.gov is one of the sources that will be utilized. PPIRS functions as the central warehouse for performance assessment reports received from several Federal performance information collection systems and is sponsored by the DOD E-Business Office and administered by the Naval Sea Logistics Center Detachment Portsmouth.

March 17, 2016

5. EVALUATION OF PRICE PROPOSAL

Factor 54: Price. The proposed price will be analyzed for reasonableness. It may also be analyzed to determine whether it is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and is consistent with the Offeror’s Technical Proposal. All offers with separately priced line items or sub line items will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing.

Contractor shall provide a Firm-Fixed price for each CLIN. Price shall be evaluated based on the lowest price offered that includes base and all option years. In all source selections analysis must include a determination, by the PCO, of whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

Although, in exceptional cases when the determination of fair and reasonable price requires additional information, the Contracting officer may request back up data (labor categories, estimated hours, profit, etc.) in order to conduct a cost analysis to support the determination of whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

6. INTENT TO AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and issue a Contract without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions and receive revised proposals if later determined to be necessary.

7. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL

The Offeror’s conformance with the specified format and submission requirements will be considered during the technical evaluation. Material omission(s) may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable.

The Offeror’s adherence to prescribed page and formatting limitations prescribed will be strictly adhered to and enforced. Information submitted which exceeds the specified limit will NOT be evaluated. For example, the Government will not evaluate excess information. If four pages are submitted in response to an item with a three page limitation, the information of the fourth page will not be evaluated.

The technical proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the technical specifications. Non-compliance with the technical specifications will be considered a deficiency and a Non-Acceptable adjectival rating will be assigned.

8. PROPOSAL EXPENSE AND PRE-AWARD COSTS

The Request for Proposal does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of the initial and/or any subsequent proposals or for any other costs incurred prior to execution of the Contract.

---END OF SECTION---