11. Section M - Evaluation Factors 22 Mar 24.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. FAR 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(FEB 1998)

(a) This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the Offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this address: https://www.acquisition.gov

M.2. BASIS FOR AWARDS

(a) Within the best value continuum, FAR 15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. The source selection process under this solicitation will not be based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) or Tradeoff process. The best value basis for awards will be determined by the Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price. All evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

(b) The Highest Technically Rated, Fair and Reasonable Price approach will best achieve the objective of awarding contracts to Offerors of varying core expertise with qualities that are most important to the government and our customers, such as Past Performance, Relevant Experience, and Prime Contract Work.

M.3. SCREENING AND EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), also referred to as a Source Selection Team (SST), will perform a two-step screening process for all offers received. First, the team will verify that a support document exists for all the evaluation criteria in accordance with the Offeror’s proposal and compare it to the Offeror’s Self Scoring.

Failure to comply with these requirements will result in an Offeror’s proposal being rejected as being non-conforming to solicitation requirements. Any discrepancies will be treated as clarifications.

1. Any proposal that includes incomplete information or does not comply with the instructions set forth in Sections J, K, and/or L of this solicitation regarding the minimum submission requirements may be removed from consideration for award without further evaluation.

(b) Proposals are reviewed by an SSEB. The evaluation methodology will use a preliminary point system outlined by the offeror scoring sheet. The SSEB will then evaluate and verify the support documentation for each evaluation factor/volume. If an evaluation element claimed is unsubstantiated, the Offeror’s preliminary score shall have the point value of the refuted evaluation element deducted and the Offeror will be re-sorted based upon the revised preliminary score. If the SSEB discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information or support, the Offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

(c) The SSEB will rank the proposals from highest points to lowest points. All ties will be broken by the information provided in Volume 7 – Cost/Price.

M.4. POINT ACCUMULATION

M.4.a.1. The maximum number of points a contractor can receive is 2,356.

M.4.a.2. The maximum number of points in Volume-1 General is 4.

• 1 point – Cover Page

• 1 point – Table of Contents

• 1 point – SF1442

• 1 point – Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet

M.4.a.3. The maximum number of points in Volume-2 Responsibility is 1.

• 1 point – GSA Form 527

M.4.a.4. The maximum number of points in Volume-3 Relevant Experience is 1500.

• 100 points EACH - 5 projects under airfield paving

• 100 points EACH - 5 projects under roadway paving

• +10 points per project >$100K

• +25 points per project >$2M

• <2 Disciplines = 0 additional points per project

• =2 Disciplines = 10 additional points per project

• ≥3 Disciplines = 25 additional points per project

M.4.a.5. The maximum number of points in Volume-4 Past Performance is 500.

• 50 points EACH – A total of 10 projects submitted

M.4.a.6. The maximum number of points in Volume-5 Prime Contractor Work is 250.

• 25 points EACH – A total of 10 projects submitted

M.4.a.7. The maximum number of points in Volume-6 Warranty Recalls is 100.

• 10 points EACH – A total of 10 projects submitted.

M.4.a.8. The maximum number of points in Volume-7 Cost/Price is 1.

• 1 point – Cost/Price analysis

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Overview

M.5.a.1. Technical Proposals will be evaluated according to the below factors. Most factors are not weighted equally. In descending order of importance, the evaluation factors are relevant experience, past performance, prime contractor work, warranty recalls, responsibility, and cost/price. Note: responsibility and cost/price are weighted equally.

Also, each technical evaluation factor (relevant experience, past performance, prime contractor work, warranty recalls) are weighted equally across both groups.

M.5.a.2. The total number of points a contractor can receive is 1,856, this does not include “additional points” that are outlined in their related sections. Contractors are able to earn a maximum of 2,356 points after factoring in all available additional points.

(b) Volume 1- General

M.5.b.1. The maximum number of points in Volume-1 General is 4.

• 1 point – Cover Page

• 1 point – Table of Contents

• 1 point – SF1442

• 1 point – Document Verification and Self Scoring Worksheet (J.8 and J.2)

• 0 points – Existing Joint Venture or Partnership Agreement

M.5.b.2. To be eligible for award, the offeror must adhere to the directions and submit all information under Volume 1 – General. An offeror must submit a cover page, table of contents, SF 1442, document verifications, all acknowledged amendments (if applicable), self-scoring overview & checklist.

M.5.b.3. If the offeror will be entering as a joint venture, then the offeror shall submit joint venture/partnership agreements or a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter. All templates and submission guidelines shall be followed. The government has the right to eliminate an offeror for failing to submit all information listed under Volume 1. Volume 1 will be determined on a pass/fail basis and an offeror will receive maximum points for a Pass rating.

(c) Volume 2- Responsibility

M.5.c.1. The maximum number of points in Volume-2 Responsibility is 1.

• 1 point – GSA Form 527 (J.6)

M.5.c.2. The Offeror shall complete and submit a GSA Form 527 (J.6), Contractor’s Qualification and Financial Information. If the fill in portion of the form does not accommodate your information, please manually write in the required information. All forms must be signed by an authorized official at the bottom of page 6. For Offerors proposing as a joint venture, the GSA Form 527 (J.6) and all attachments must be provided by all members of the joint venture.

M.5.c.3. Overall responsibility determination will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. In accordance with FAR Part 9, Offerors that are not deemed responsible will not be considered for award. A satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics will be required.

M.5.c.4. In making the overall determination of responsibility, information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), exclusions denoted in the System for

M.5.c.5. Award Management (SAM), the representations and certifications with SAM and Section K, the Offeror’s Financial Resources, and other pertinent data will be considered.

(d) Volume 3- Relevant Experience

M.5.d.1. The maximum number of points in Volume-3 Relevant Experience is 1500.

• 100 points EACH - 5 projects under airfield paving

• 100 points EACH - 5 projects under roadway paving

• +0 points per project Under $100K

• +10 points per project Over $100K

• +25 points per project Over $2M

• <2 Disciplines = 0 additional points per project

• =2 Disciplines = 10 additional points per project

• ≥3 Disciplines = 25 additional points per project

M.5.d.2. For each relevant experience project submitted, the Offeror will receive points if the project demonstrates the claimed Performance Area, as described in Specifications section 1.1. The project must correlate directly to the claimed Performance Area as identified in Section L.3.3. No more than 10 projects can be submitted for Volume 3 and no more than 5 projects per performance area.

M.5.d.3. Relevant Experience information submitted must be in accordance with the instructions and substantiated by providing enough clear and convincing evidence within a Contract or Task Order document or other verifiable contractual documents to adequately support each minimum evaluation criteria and each scored evaluation criteria an Offeror is claiming credit for.

M.5.d.4. Contractors may submit up to TEN projects. All submitted project will include the disciplines under the performance areas. It is at the discretion of the CO to review any projects submitted in a more detailed manor, if no work within listed disciplines was accomplished on a submitted project, no points shall be awarded.

M.5.d.5. Relevant Experience Demonstrating Management of Larger Value Projects.

• For each relevant experience project submitted under Section L.3.3 the Offeror will consider the thresholds listed below when assigning additional points. Projects that meet threshold 1 “Project Value between $100K and

$2M” will receive 10 additional points. Projects that meet threshold 2 “Project Value greater than $2M” will receive 25 additional points.

1. Project value between $100,000-$2,000,000

2. Project value greater than $2,000,000

M.5.d.6. Breadth of Relevant Experience Performance Areas

M.5.d.7. For each relevant experience project submitted under L3.3., the offeror will assign points based on the breadth of experience they can demonstrate against the areas of work listed under Specifications Section 1.1. Greater points will be given if project includes multiple relevant work disciplines (i.e. sidewalks, parking lots, curbing, etc).

• Only the following work disciplines can be considered: Sec 1.1 of Specifications

• <2 Disciplines = 0 additional points

• =2 Disciplines = 10 additional points

• ≥3 Disciplines = 25 additional points

(e) Volume 4- Past Performance

M.5.e.1. The maximum number of points in Volume-4 Past Performance is 500 points.

• Up to 50 points per project, 10 projects in total.

• Score dependent on CPARS ratings.

• Excellent – 50pts

• Very Good – 25pts

• Satisfactory – 10pts

• Unsatisfactory – 0pts

M.5.e.2. The Offeror will be evaluated on a basis of demonstrating a positive record of past performance. Past performance will be considered from up to 5 past performance projects for each performance area listed and 10 projects total per offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact references for any submitted past performance example. Additional references may also be contacted if three past performance examples are not submitted. Offerors that demonstrate positive past performance on each past performance example submitted will be scored in accordance with the Sections L and M with Attachment J.2.

M.5.e.3. Positive past performance is defined as each past performance example receiving a satisfactory or greater rating for most rating elements.

M.5.e.4. Using the same projects listed in the “relevant experience” factor, provide past performance for the relevant experience projects. This data should come from https://www.cpars.gov/, the accepted values in this category are Excellent (E) worth 50pts, Very Good (VG) worth 25pts, Satisfactory (S) worth 10pts or Unsatisfactory (U) worth 0pts. Each corresponding CPARS will be submitted in the package. In cases where a CPARS Rating is unavailable, Past Performance Questionnaire Template (J.4), signed by the awarding company or oversight manager, such as the project manager will be accepted so long as there is adequate documentation and viable contact information for the projects point of contact.

Official CPARS will be used to the maximum extent practical.

(f) Volume-5 Prime Contractor Work

M.5.f.1. The maximum number of points in Volume-5 Prime Contractor Work is 250.

• 25 points EACH – A total of 10 projects submitted

M.5.f.2. An offeror will demonstrate prime contractor work for no more than 5 contracts closely associated with the performance areas. Prime Contractor as the offeror has privity-of-contract with the Government/Party for all contractual obligations under a mutually binding legal relationship with the Government/Party. Substantial subcontracting work will satisfy prime contractor work if the offeror completed more than 50% of the work related to the performance areas listed in in Specifications 1.1., any supporting documentation needed to show that the offeror was the Prime on a contract. The submitted projects for relevant experience will also be used for this section. For each project answer “yes” or “no” to the following: “Were you the Prime on this project?” In this evaluation, to be the “prime contractor” the offeror must have completed greater than or equal to 51% of the work. Exceptions to this rule are runway rubber removal, road paint/airway striping, and utility work. Any work sub-contracted for runway rubber removal, road paint/airway striping, or utility work does not count against the percentage.

(g) Volume-6 Warranty Recalls

M.5.g.1. The maximum number of points in Volume-6 Warranty Recalls is 100.

• 10 points EACH - 5 projects under airfield paving without any recalls caused by latent defects, fraud, or gross mistakes that amount to fraud.

• 10 points EACH - 5 projects under roadway paving without any recalls caused by latent defects, fraud, or gross mistakes that amount to fraud.

M.5.g.2. Warranty recalls on related experience will be based on the projects listed for past performance under section L. If these projects experienced any warranty recalls or concerns about workmanship quality, there will be a reduction of points in this category if the recall was due to latent defects, fraud, or gross mistakes that amount to fraud.

Points will not be reduced if the workmanship quality or warranty call was due to work caused by a manufacturer defect.

M.5.g.3. Of the listed related projects, if there are any warranty recalls, please fill out the attachment in Sec J and explain each of these instances. On the self-scoring worksheet mark YES if the recall was due to latent defects, fraud, or gross mistakes that amount to fraud. Mark NO if there were no call backs OR if the recall(s) was NOT due to latent defects, fraud, or gross mistakes that amount to fraud. If the recall was due to latent defects, fraud, or gross mistakes that amount to fraud, then a reduction of points will be applied in this category Use template in Sec J.6 “VOL 6-RECALL-Last 4 Contract Number-Company Name”

(h) Volume-7 Cost/Price

M.5.h.1. The maximum number of points in Volume-7 Cost/Price is 1.

• 1 point – Cost/Price analysis

M.5.h.2. While the PCO anticipates that pricing for this acquisition will be based on adequate price competition through task orders and therefore does not require submission or certification of cost or pricing data, but Offerors are cautioned to provide clear and concise explanations of their pricing methodology and their labor and burden estimating practice. Offerors are cautioned against unbalanced and unrealistic pricing.

M.5.h.3. Offerors shall submit supporting documentation for the basis of direct labor and indirect cost rates, consistent with their organization’s cost accounting systems and, if applicable, provisional billing rates and forward pricing rate agreements. If an Offeror does not currently have employees to fulfill the duties under a labor category or labor categories, the Offeror must explain its methodology for establishing Prime Contractor labor rates for such categories. Identifying specific subcontractors and separate subcontractor pricing shall not be included in the Basis of Estimate.

M.5.h.4. The cost information in Volume 7 (attach J.9) will be used to determine tie breaks in the event of two highly qualified offerors receiving the same overall points total.