Amendment_0002_140L5724R0006_Updated_Section_M_0002.pdf

SOLICITATION NO: 140L5724R0006

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: White Sands Campground Redevelopment

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedure to make a best value award. The government intends to make ONE award based on evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who provides the best value under the LPTA award methodology. Best value is defined as the proposal that complies with all solicitation terms and conditions, provides the lowest price, and has been determined to be technically acceptable in accordance with technical evaluation criteria. However, the Government is willing to pay up to 5% more for a technically acceptable ISBEE or SDB quote. While the government will strive for maximum objectivity, the technically acceptable/unacceptable review process is subjective by nature. Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the evaluation process.

If the lowest priced evaluated is considered a technically acceptable offer that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror is not considered technically acceptable, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is determined to be technically acceptable or until all offerors are evaluated. The Contracting Officer shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

M-2 LPTA EVALUATION PROCESS

The LPTA evaluation process will be accomplished as follows: A tiered evaluation preference will be used to first evaluate proposals from Indian Small Business Economic Enterprises (ISBEE); if no award can be made to an ISBEE, proposals from small disadvantage business (SDB) will be reviewed; if no award can be made to an SDB, all remaining proposals will be reviewed. Each tier will be evaluated as follows:

Step 1 – Sort all proposals by ISBEE, SDB, and all other SB in separate groups by price from lowest to highest.

Step 2 – Evaluate the lowest-priced proposal for technical acceptability. The technical portion of the quote will be rated based either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.

Step 3 – If found acceptable, evaluate price reasonableness and move to step 4. If found unacceptable, go back to Step 2 and repeat with next lowest-priced proposal.

Step 4 – Determine the responsibility of the vendor.

(a) Technical Acceptability. Each offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the detailed specifications provided in this solicitation and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. Technical approaches will be rated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” after completion of technical proposal evaluations. Failure to meet any requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. If an offeror receives a final technical rating of “unacceptable” for any subfactor, they will not be considered for contract award.

(b) Price Evaluation. The price proposed must be determined fair, reasonable, and affordable in accordance with “M-5 Volume 3: Factor 2, Price” below.

M-3 VOLUME 1: REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION

Acceptable required documentation includes complete and accurate forms as outlined in “L-7 Volume 1: Required Documentation.”

M-4 VOLUME 2: FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL APPROACH/CAPABILITIES

(a) Subfactor 1: To be deemed acceptable, the technical proposal shall include a logical construction plan in the required format. The plan shall indicate a sound and reasonable approach to complete all project elements described in the technical divisions of the project specifications. The construction plan shall successfully illustrate the capability of the offeror to manage all project elements to include significant construction tasks, suppliers, subcontractors, employees, and equipment.

(b) Subfactor 2: To be deemed acceptable, the construction schedule shall be in a Gantt or similar format. The total duration must fall within the maximum period of performance (in calendar days) as outlined in FAR 52.211-10(c). Acceptable schedules will include submission/processing of submittals and all onsite construction work within the total period of performance. An acceptable schedule will indicate an understanding of the project requirements, utilize a logical approach to sequencing, and account for any applicable work restrictions or complications.

SOLICITATION NO: 140L5724R0006

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: White Sands Campground Redevelopment

(c) Subfactor 3: To be deemed acceptable, organizational capabilities shall indicate appropriate skills, abilities, and resources to perform the type of construction work outlined in project documentation. Key personnel shall be appropriately identified and have adequate experience to include relevant credentials and certifications. Applicable subcontractors shall have adequate credentials, experience, and history working in their respective trade.

M-5 VOLUME 3: FACTOR 2, PRICE

(a) Reasonableness – In order to be acceptable, the price proposed must be determined to be fair and reasonable. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b), Price Analysis, will be the primary means of assessing proposal reasonableness. The evaluation techniques described under FAR 15.404-1(c) through (g), as determined appropriate, may also be performed in further determining the reasonableness of the price proposed. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3, Determining Reasonableness.

(b) Affordability – The price proposed must be deemed affordable. An assessment will be performed to determine if the price is within the government’s funding profile. Prices deemed unaffordable will be subsequently determined to be unacceptable.

(c) Limitations on Subcontracting – The proposed price must comply with limitations on subcontracting requirements to include self-performance of the required percentage listed in H-7.

d) Additive Items – IAW DIARS 1452.236-71, the government will evaluate prices proposed in consideration of base and additive items.

Award of any additive is dependent upon available funding and all additives are listed in order of priority. If an additive item is unaffordable, the government will consider the next most important additive for award. Total price will be evaluated for each offeror in consideration of the same combination of base and additive items.

(END OF SECTION & SOLICITATION)