PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS, BASIS OF AWARD, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA (PHASE ONE ONLY)
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Information & Technology (OIT), IT Space and Facilities Management, maintains the Capital Region Readiness Center (CRRC), a Mission-Critical facility, located on the premises of the VA Medical Center (VAMC) campus in Martinsburg, WV.
This requirement is for a Design-Build (DB) contract to design and install a perimeter security hardening (fencing, guard gate, bollards, etc.) of the CRRC facility that meets the requirements of the current VA Physical Security and Resiliency Design Manual (PSRDM) and VA Technical Information Library (TIL). The Design-Build Contractor (DBC) shall provide all resources necessary for full design and construction including site verification (surveying, underground utility location, etc.), equipment, labor, material, installation etc., for the deliverables described in this Statement of Work (SOW), except as otherwise specified.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This requirement will be advertised as a 100% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business set-aside. Offerors submitting as a joint venture must provide the agreement forming the joint venture.
All proposals shall be submitted electronically, except for the Bid Bond (required in Phase Two).
All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format. Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.
Title the file(s) in the following format:
36C10F26R0037_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME I
36C10F26R0037_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME II
Submit proposals electronically via email to the following:
Kelly Hawkins, Contract Specialist, Kelly.Hawkins2@va.gov
Andrew Page, Contracting Officer, Andrew.Page@va.gov
SUBMITTAL OF OFFERS:
Offerors submitting proposals for this project should limit submissions to data essential for evaluation of proposals in preparing information required herein. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, the proposals must include information sufficiently detailed to clearly describe the Offeror's experience and capability, past performance, and use of small business necessary for successful completion of the project. Requirements stated in this RFP are minimums.
The Offeror s conformance with the specified format, submission requirements, and the Offeror s attention to detail will be considered during the technical evaluation and trade-off. Material omission(s) may result in a deficiency, which may cause the technical proposal to be rejected as unacceptable.
Technical proposals that do not provide the specified information in the specified location in accordance with the submission instructions may be found to have weaknesses or significant weaknesses. The Government is under no obligation to search for information that is not in the specified location.
Responses that are essentially blanket offers of compliance are not adequate substitutes for the detailed and complete technical information necessary to establish that an Offeror can meet Government needs. The proposal submission instructions are written to give prospective contractors, where feasible, an indication of the level of detail desired by the Government. The Offeror s failure to include information that the Government has indicated should be included may result in the proposal being assigned a (significant) weakness and/or being found deficient if inadequate detail is provided.
Any prescribed page and formatting limitations will be strictly adhered to and enforced by the Government. The Government will not evaluate any excess information resulting from the Offeror s failure to comply with the submission instructions.
Exceptions. Do not include exceptions to the terms and conditions of the solicitation in either the technical or price proposal volumes. Inclusion of any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in a determination that the offer is unacceptable and thus ineligible for award. Resolve questions about the terms and conditions or technical requirements of the solicitation prior to submission of the offer.
Restrictions on Offeror-Provided Information. Confidential projects cannot be submitted to demonstrate capability unless all of the information required for evaluation as specified herein can nonetheless be provided to the Government as part of the Offeror s technical proposal. Confidential Project is defined as projects containing confidential information of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security with the unauthorized disclosure. Offerors that include in their proposals information that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, must clearly mark the information in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offeror Competitive Acquisition , paragraph (e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data. Files shall not contain classified data.
PROPOSAL FORMAT
General Proposal Format:
ALL Volumes shall contain:
Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.
Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.
Tabs. Proposals shall be organized and tabbed in accordance with the tabbing per Phase and Volume.
All Volumes shall be formatted as follows:
Electronic Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on single sided 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of any specified limitation shall not be evaluated.
Number of Copies. Offerors SHALL submit an electronic version (PDF Format) of the original Volume I and Volume II. Offerors SHALL submit only two files in PDF format (i.e. Volume I and Volume II). These two files should be named in a specific format: Solicitation Number, Offerors Company and the volume (i.e. 36C10F26R0037_Company_VolumeI.pdf). Given the limited time and resources of the evaluation board, failure to provide proposal in the correct format may hinder the board's ability to evaluate the Offeror's proposal.
Proposal Formatting:
VOLUME I (Contract Requirements):
TAB A Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.
TAB B Representations and Certifications.
TAB C Proposal Data Sheet See Attachment 3 provided in the solicitation. Offerors should ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and Unique Entity ID are all included. The Unique Entity ID provided will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. If a separate ID has been created for a joint venture it must also be submitted. The Offeror shall also submit its Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.
TAB D Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable.
VOLUME II (Phase I Technical- Requirements):
TAB E FACTOR 1 Organization/Technical Approach & Schedule
TAB F FACTOR 2 Past Performance of the Offeror s Team
TAB G FACTOR 3 Key Personnel
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
Volume II, Tab E Factor 1 Organizational/Technical Approach & Schedule:
1.1 Provide information that describes the Offeror's organization and intended technical approach to executing the contract per the detailed requirements of the solicitation. Offerors are limited to 25 pages total for this factor. Any pages submitted beyond this limit will be removed and will not be read or given any consideration. Offerors should clearly but concisely describe the organizational and technical approach to project management and execution.
1.2 Organizational Approach: Describe what firms (Offeror/Prime and subcontractors), their resources and how their resources will be utilized, their roles and responsibilities and any contractual arrangements that will be established. Present a matrix of responsibilities for each firm in executing the key work breakdown structure activities of the project, including construction activities for each major feature. The Offeror should identify any specific firms chosen as subcontractors or indicate self-performance. If the Offeror intends to subcontract out any separate work types, identify the subcontractor. In order for a firm other than the Offeror to contribute to the Offeror s organizational approach, document unequivocal teaming arrangements with subcontractors. Describe the proposed management structure for the team, how the design and construction process will be managed and the authorities and the delegations of authority within the team. Include a chart illustrating the organization including the proposed quality control group(s). Include a key personnel organization chart that clearly depicts the key positions and the names of the personnel, their firm affiliations and their job locations, and their job/position title within the organization. The key personnel organization chart shall be consistent with the corporate organization chart and with the matrix of responsibilities assigned to the team firms.
1.3 Technical Approach for Design and Construction: Describe the approach for the full scope of work in the contract, including design and construction/installation of the upgraded perimeter security including but not limited to: fencing, anti-ram rated vehicle barriers, gates, etc. Describe interactions within the team and with the Resident Engineering office during the construction. Describe the role and interaction of the construction team during construction, addressing elements such as schedule management, material/equipment delivery and management, labor management, cost management, site security and personnel assurance system management, progress meetings, documentation and quality control.
1.3.1 Describe quality control procedures during design and construction. Include description of quality control inspection and submittal register control.
1.3.2 As per FAR 52.236-1, the contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivalent to at least 20% of the total amount of work to be performed under the contract.
1.3.3 Proposed Contract Duration and Summary Schedule: The Offeror shall submit a summary level schedule for design and construction with details for all major activities. The number of calendar days should be included for each activity. This summary schedule will, after contract award, be replaced with a project schedule. The schedules should be task oriented, indicating the number of calendar days, after notice to proceed, by which milestones are to be achieved.
1.4 Source Selection Evaluation Criteria for Factor 1 Organizational/Technical Approach & Schedule:
1.4.1 The Government will evaluate the firm s understanding and capability to execute the project, as well as compliance w/ the percentage of work to be performed by the contractor as per FAR 52.236-1. Some additional specific evaluation considerations are listed below.
1.4.2 Organizational Approach: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength of the overall organization and how well it is organized, structured and staffed to execute the entire scope of work. Joint venture participant s contribution to the organization should be commensurate with their skills and background.
1.4.3 Technical Approach for Design and Construction: The Government will evaluate the clarity and strength for technical approach. The Government places a higher value on an Offeror that provides proposed methods to streamline construction, manage labor and other resource constraints in an effort to reduce costs and support an aggressive schedule. The Government will also consider whether the approach reduces on-site fabrication and susceptibility to inclement weather delays. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror s capabilities and understanding of the contractually required quality control processes for construction.
1.4.4 Schedule:
1.4.4.1 Summary Schedule: The Government will evaluate the summary schedule for design and construction. The length of the schedule must match the contract duration. The Government will evaluate the schedule to assess the strength of understanding of the project scope, restrictions which must be considered in the schedule e.g. permitting, long lead items, etc. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability to schedule the complete project within the contract duration and the realism of the schedule. A schedule that offers advantage(s) to the Government over one that merely indicates an adequate understanding of the scope, restrictions, major milestones and general understanding of the various events that can affect start and completion of construction will receive additional consideration.
Volume II, Tab F Factor 2 Past Performance:
2.1 The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) included in the Government s RFP as Attachment 2 is provided for the Offeror or its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its RFP response for Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client point of contact. If the Offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a project(s) before the response closing dates, the Offeror should complete and submit with the response the first page of the PPQ, 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. NOTE: If available, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations may be submitted in lieu of PPQs.
2.2 Offerors may also include performance recognition documents, not necessarily related to those projects submitted for Factor 2, received within the last seven (7) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition.
2.3 In addition to the above, 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, etc.) identified in the Offeror s response, inquiries of owner representative(s).
2.4. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.
2.5 Rating Guidelines for Factor 2 - Past Performance:
2.5.1 The Offeror shall present examples of previous projects demonstrating construction performance and specialized experience using the format provided in Attachment 2 (Past Performance Questionnaire). As noted in Attachment 2, Offerors may use continuation sheets to provide information to the level of detail required to answer the RFP, as necessary. Relevant experience is obtained by performing projects similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude to this project. In order to be relevant, the experience must also be recent. However, this does not prevent the Government from considering projects completed more than seven (7) years ago; with less recent projects being considered less relevant. Submit specialized experience information for the following elements/types of work:
Design of Perimeter Security - The Offeror (Prime Contractor) and/or its key subcontractor shall demonstrate via examples of projects completed within the last seven (7) years and of similar scope, magnitude and complexity, demonstrating their ability to perform such work as described within the SOW. Magnitude is defined as a total cost of over $1M in a single project/contract.
Fencing Installation. The Offeror (Prime Contractor) and/or its key subcontractor shall demonstrate via examples of projects completed within the last seven (7) years and of similar scope, magnitude and complexity, demonstrating their ability to perform such work. Those demonstrating anti-climb and anti-ram will be given additional consideration.
Barriers. The Offeror (Prime Contractor) and/or its key subcontractor shall demonstrate via examples of projects completed within the last seven (7) years and of similar scope, magnitude and complexity, demonstrating their ability to perform such work. This includes both Anti-Ram rated vehicle barriers as well as inactive barriers such as boulders and/or cable and bollard systems.
Offerors shall submit at least two (2) relevant projects, but no more than five (5). Additional consideration will be given to submissions of more than two (2) relevant projects. The dollar value of the proposed subcontractor s experience on a submitted relevant project shall be explicitly stated (regardless of whether that contractor was a prime or subcontractor on the submitted project). Also, in order for the Offeror to meet the criteria of the sub-paragraphs above, an Offeror s relevant experience must have been met cumulatively by no more than the Offeror and/or one (1) key subcontractor.
2.5.2 Offerors are limited to 30 pages total for this factor. Any pages submitted beyond this limit will be removed and will not be read or given any consideration (PPQs and/or CPARS will not count towards page limitation).
2.5.3 Project completion is defined as the date the facility or work was turned over to or occupied by the owner. Projects that are considered substantially complete meaning listed at a percentage of completion of 90% or higher will be considered complete, but the Offeror must explicitly state so for a project to be considered complete.
2.5.4 If the Offeror submits experience for a proposed subcontractor, the experience must be relevant to the firm s role on this project. In addition, the Offeror must include documentation of an unequivocal teaming agreement or letter of commitment in this section of the proposal, signed by an authorized representative of the proposed
subcontractor.
2.6 Source Selection Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2 Past Performance:
2.6.1 The Government will first assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the Offeror to the scope of this contract for overall application to the performance confidence assessment ratings described hereinafter. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. The projects will include those submitted under Factor 2 as well as from other sources described above. This rating is not a separate response rating but is only used in developing overall past performance confidence assessment rating assigned to the Past Performance Criterion.
2.6.2 The Government will next perform a performance confidence assessment, considering how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will consider the recency (completed no longer than seven (7) years preceding the date of this solicitation) and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy and recency, successful past performance on projects with more relevance and/or those that are more recent will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than successful past performance on projects of lesser relevance and/or those that are less recent. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, The Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer or by the team member. The Government also places a higher value on projects which document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the response, CPARS or other agency performance databases, Offeror furnished references, or personal knowledge. The Government also places a higher value on projects, which provided particularly difficult or unique challenges and the innovative methods the contractor used to resolve problems successfully. The rating for this criterion will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the Offeror's ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements.
2.6.3 Each entity (firm) will be rated on its own performance. An entity may not establish past performance based on the past performance of its proposed key personnel, apart from that of the entity. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the Offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the Offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably.
2.6.4 For this factor, the Government will evaluate the degree of relevance of the demonstrated experience and will assess the level of risk of unsuccessful performance based on the extent of relevant experience presented.
2.6.5 Demonstrated experience of the Offeror (Prime Contractor) will be given greater weight than that of a proposed subcontractor.
2.6.6 Projects that are more similar to this work will be given more weight. For example, single projects that include multiple aspects will be given greater weight than separate projects that include only one aspect of requested experience.
2.6.7 Projects that exceed the magnitudes stated above may be given greater weight. However, in any case, the Government will consider the nature of the project, duration, timeframe, as well as the scope and complexity in determining whether the previous project is a positive indicator of capability with respect to this work.
2.6.8 Other aspects of the project that may be considered in determining similarity include: location (jurisdiction), agency and stakeholder coordination requirements, security requirements, safety and quality control criteria, type of contract (e.g. Firm Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursable), and other project constraints affecting complexity.
2.6.9 Projects completed by affiliates, subsidiaries, parent companies, or similar will be given no weight.
2.6.10 The submitted projects should demonstrate experience with generators and electrical substations. Not demonstrating such experience will be considered not relevant experience.
Volume II, Tab G Factor 3 Key Personnel:
3.1 Provide resumes for the personnel proposed for the key positions identified below. These positions must be staffed by the Prime contractor. Indicate whether each individual has had a significant role in any of the project examples cited in Factor 2. For each person, provide a brief resume using the Key Personnel Resume form or similar, provided that it has all required information (Attachment 1).
Note: References to the alternate personnel in Factor 3 are listed in the event that any of the required personnel need to be replaced, or require a backup for personal vacations or in the event of illness, in which case contractors will be required to provide personnel w/ qualifications that are equal to or greater than the requirements in the RFP/specification or the original personnel submitted, whichever is greater. All substituted personnel will be subject to approval by the Government. To ensure sufficient coverage during construction, Offerors shall submit at least one (1) alternate personnel each, for the Contractor Quality Control System Manager and the Site Safety and Health Officer, in addition to the minimum required number of personnel for each position.
3.2. Project Superintendent The project superintendent is the individual primarily responsible for managing and coordinating day-to-day production and schedule adherence on the project. The superintendent is required to attend partnering meetings, and quality control meetings. The superintendent (or qualified alternative) must be on-site at all times during the performance of this contract until the work is completed and accepted, and is responsible for all construction and related activities at the site, including quality and production, except as otherwise acceptable to the Contracting Officer.
The Project Superintendent should have a minimum of ten (10) years on-site construction experience, with experience as a Project Superintendent in projects as defined in Factor 2. The individual must be capable of interpreting a critical path schedule and construction drawings. The qualification requirements for any potential alternate superintendent will be the same as for the project superintendent. The Contracting Officer may request proof of the superintendent's qualifications at any point in the project if the performance of the superintendent is in question.
3.3. Project Manager: The Project Manager shall have a minimum of ten (10) years construction experience, with experience as a Project Manager in projects as defined in Factor 2.
3.4. Contractor Quality Control (CQC) System Manager - Identify as CQC System Manager an individual within the onsite work organization at the site of the work who shall be responsible for overall management of CQC and have the authority to act in all CQC matters for the Contractor.
The CQC System Manager must have a Bachelor of Science from an accredited engineering, architecture, or a construction management college or a state Professional Engineer s license and possess a minimum of four (4) years construction experience (including one (1) year as a quality control representative) as an employee of the Offeror.
Alternately, the CQC System Manager may be a construction person and possess a minimum of eight (8) years construction experience in related work (including one (1) year as a quality control representative) as an employee of the Offeror.
The CQC System Manager will be required to be on site at all times during construction and is employed by the prime Contractor. The CQC System Manager is assigned no other duties. The prime contractor is required to identify an alternate to serve in the event of the CQC System Manager's absence. The requirements for the alternate are the same as the CQC System Manager.
3.5. Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) (EM 385-1-1). The Contractor shall provide an SSHO that meets the requirements of EM 385-1-1 Section 1 and all associated subparagraphs. The SSHO must ensure that the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.16 are met for the project. The SSHO shall be responsible for managing, implementing and enforcing the Contractor s Safety and Health Program.
During construction, the SSHO or an equally-qualified Alternate SSHO must be at the work site at all times to implement and administer the Contractor's safety program and government-accepted Accident Prevention Plan. The Alternate SSHO must meet the same training, experience, and qualifications requirements specified for the SSHO.
CFM views this as a complex or high hazard project ; consequently the SSHO shall have a minimum of ten (10) years of safety-related work with at least five (5) years experience in heavy construction projects on generator yards and electrical substations as defined in Factor 2. They shall also have completed the OSHA 30 hour construction safety course (or the prescribed equivalent) and document performance of 24 hours in formal safety training for every four (4) years of experience. Additional consideration will be given to a proposed SSHO who has at least two (2) years of experience in the employ of the Offeror and/or has previously worked on a project with other proposed key personnel.
3.6 Source Selection Evaluation Criteria for Factor 3 Key Personnel:
3.6.1 For this factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the qualifications and experience described on the individual resumes are commensurate with the requirements for the proposed roles on this project; and will assess the level of risk of unsuccessful performance based on the depth and breadth of relevant experience and credentials presented. If alternates are proposed for key positions, the evaluation rating will consider the lesser qualified or experienced person, if there is a difference. Examples of aspects of resumes that the Government places a higher value on include years of relevant experience, higher level credentials such as Masters versus Bachelors, years of service with the Offeror, and experience on any of the projects presented in Factor 2.
Note: Other sections of the solicitation may identify additional criteria for these and other key personnel. The Government s evaluation does not relieve the awarded contractor from compliance with any and all criteria of the solicitation regardless of the rating assigned for this factor. Additionally, the level of qualifications and experience submitted in the accepted proposal or that required by the Solicitation, whichever is greater, is the minimum standard for any substitution.
Offerors are limited to 30 pages for this factor.
PHASE TWO FACTORS (Not to be submitted at this time):
A Request for Proposal will be requested to no more three (3) of the most highly qualified offerors from Phase I. The Phase I factors are NOT to be resubmitted in Phase II; however, the ratings from the Phase I factors carries through to Phase II and is as equal in importance to Phase II. Phase II Proposals will be evaluated and award will be made on the basis of both price and technical considerations most advantageous to the Government as per FAR Part 15.101-1(a), Tradeoff, as the Government may consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror if it is in the best interest of the Government.
4.1 Design Concept (FACTOR 4):
The offeror s design approach will be evaluated as a measure of the offeror s understanding of the project, VA bridging documents and compliance with design and performance criteria.
Understanding of the project and anticipated challenges (design)
Understanding of VA design criteria package: master site plan, etc. and VA Facilities Design Guide 4.6.1.3
Compliance with key design & performance criteria to meet VA standards
4.2 Construction Management (FACTOR 5) : The offeror s construction approach will be evaluated as a measure of the offeror s understanding of the construction project requirements, equipment delivery, quality control and understanding of local conditions.
Understanding of the project, work requirements and anticipated challenges (construction)
Description of critical construction materials & technique to ensure timely delivery
Description of quality control measures
Understanding of local conditions
5. Price Proposal (PHASE TWO Requirement)
Definitions
Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (see FAR 15.001). The presence of a deficiency will automatically result in an Unacceptable rating in the pertinent evaluation factor. The Government cannot make award based on an unacceptable offer. Therefore, a rating of Unacceptable under any factor will render the offer ineligible for award, unless the Government elects to enter into discussions with that Offeror and all deficiencies are remedied in a revised proposal.
Strength: An aspect of an Offerors proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.
Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offerors 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.
Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. In the case of Small Business Participation, the contractor shall meet the overall SB goal.
Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001. In the case of Small Business Participation, the proposal does not provide any support that contractor will meet proposed SB objectives or any of the proposed subcategory SB goals.
Uncertainty: Any aspect of a technical factor proposal for which the intent of the offer 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).
Clarification: Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306(a)(1).
Adverse Past Performance: Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as CPARS.
Discussions: Exchanges between the Government and the Offerors that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal.
BASIS FOR AWARD
Proposals must meet the criteria stated in the RFP in order to be eligible for award, to include capability in accordance with the evaluation criteria and responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.
Relative Importance of Factors:
Phase One Factors are listed in descending order of importance:
Organizational/Technical Approach & Schedule
Past Performance
Key Personnel
Phase Two Factors are listed in descending order of importance:
Design Concept
Construction Management
All technical factors, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to Price (Phase One and Phase Two are equal in importance).
The Government will award the Contract to the responsible Offeror whose technical submittal and price proposal contain the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government. Contract award will be made in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.
Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to automatically assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.
