20220228_Attachment 09 - Section M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ROOFING CONTRACT

SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 4 March 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Federal

Acquisition website, https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. A Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW

FAR Part 9.1 whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L –

Instruction to Offers [ITO] of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded – The Government intends to select one contractor for the

Roofing program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the

Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the

Government determines to not award a contract the Government is not liable for costs in connection with any response to this RFP. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions.

1.3. In addition to the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract award, the Government intends to issue a single task order for the Seed Project to the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

Offeror for the Seed Project within the pool of eligible awardees for the basic contract (as determined by the Government). This may or may not be the Offeror with the lowest Total

Evaluated Price (TEP) as the Seed Project is only one component of the TEP (see 2.3.4 below).

However, issuance of the Seed Project task order is at the sole discretion of the Government.

1.4. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by Offeror(s). The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions, however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that doing so would be in its best interest.

1.5. Correction Potential of Proposals - The Government will consider, through the evaluation, the

“correction potential” of an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation. The judgment of such

“correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirement, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, if one is established, or contract award.

https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

2.1. The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and sub-factors below –

Volume I – Price

Volume II – Technical Acceptability (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Sub-Factor One – Manufacturer’s Certification/Licenses Sub-Factor Two – Seed Project Sub-Factor Three – Basic Contract Safety and Health Plan and Basic Quality

Control Plan

Sub-Factor Four – Bonding Capability

Volume III – Past Performance (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Volume IV – Contract Documentation

2.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY –

2.2.1. A price evaluation will be performed on all proposals in accordance with Section 2.2 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

If a TEP for an Offeror cannot be calculated due to the omission or error of the Offeror, the

Government may set aside the Offeror’s proposal and proceed to other Offeror’s proposals.

2.2.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with that of the lowest priced Offeror. A minimum of three lowest priced offers will be evaluated, unless fewer than three offers are received. Evaluations will cease when three technically acceptable proposals receive an acceptable past performance rating.

2.2.3. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-price factors.

2.2.3.1. If a sufficient number of Offeror(s) as determined by the Government are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the

SSA may:

2.2.3.1.1. Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions. The contracting officer may determine the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

2.2.4. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability. It is also possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance.

2.2.5. Technical and past performance evaluation of an Offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

3. VOLUME I – PRICE

3.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Reasonableness; (2) Balanced and (3) Total

Evaluated Price (TEP).

3.2. Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using analysis of the provided information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 maybe required to support the proposed price.

3.3. Balanced Pricing - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more price elements are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the offers. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be based upon the pricing requirements of 3.4.1. The

TEP is based upon the total pricing of the 5 years from the “Notional Amount Application” located in the Attachment 8 “Total Evaluation Price – TEP”

3.4.1. The TEP is sum of the Notional Amount Application to Offeror’s proposed dollar quantities, as contained in the Notional Amount Application tab (Cell FD50) in the Section J – Attachment 08, Total Evaluated Price. The notional quantities located used in the “Notional Amount Application” will be determined by the Government before offers are evaluated and will be equally applied to all Offerors. The notional dollar quantities supplied in each offer will not be disclosed to Offerors.

The notional quantities used will be for evaluation purposes only, only the rates proposed by the

Offeror receiving award will be contractually binding.

3.5 Seed Project Pricing – The seed project pricing is evaluated for consistency with year 1 notional pricing from the Notional Amount Application tab. The Seed project price is not used for the determination of the TEP.

3.5.1 The sum of the Seed Project total proposed price as contained in the Seed Project tab(Cell F50)

(see Section J - Attachment 08, Total Evaluated Price). The sum of the seed project is used to determine that contractor abides by related pricing from the Notional Amount Application. It is not used to determine the TEP of the base contract only the pricing of the seed project. The amounts in the Estimated Quantities of the Seed project are determined by the government and not to be altered. The pricing supplied by each solicitation will not be disclosed to Offerers only the total price of the winning bid as required. Please note that this price will be contractually binding and may be awarded at the Government’s sole discretion.

4. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY –

4.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to the Statement of Work (SOW) sections required in

Section L – Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the

Offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the

Government. The Government may make a final determination as to the Offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the

Offeror. The Offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2. Technical Acceptability - The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.”

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the

Government may hold discussions if necessary.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

4.3. SUB-FACTOR ONE – MANUFACTURER’S CERTIFICATIONS/LICENSES

4.3.1. Warranty Certification – Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included manufacturer’s certification qualifying the Offeror to receive a minimum of a 20 year product and installation warranty on the following; but not limited to:

(a) Built-up roofing system (BUR)

(b) Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene (SBS) modified bitumen roofing system

(c) standing seam metal roofing system, and

(d) asphalt shingle roofing, and single ply membrane roofing as specified in Basic SOW A-02.

4.3.2. Master Lightning Protection License – Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included documentation that demonstrated the Offeror has current master lightning protection license(s) or demonstrated the ability to sub-contract to a licensed contractor when needed.

4.4. SUB-FACTOR TWO – SEED PROJECT (BASIC IDIQ AND SEED PROJECT SOW)

4.4.1. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included a schedule for the Seed Project as outlined in the Seed SOW 3.2 identifying all major phases of construction including mobilization, submittals, material approvals, and a realistic timeline.

4.4.2. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included a written narrative that demonstrated the

Offeror understands and is capable of completing each major aspect of construction included in the Basic SOW including, but not limited to; submittals, mobilization, 20 year warranty, roofing removal (if applicable), rebuilding roofing surface, roofing technique or approach, materials to be used for roofing, new roofing installation, clean-up, and demobilization of all equipment, and is compliant with all applicable Base Facility Design Standards, Unified Criteria design, and specifications guidance.

4.4.3. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal included a list of all proposed materials for construction for the Seed Project IAW the Seed SOW 3.4 and included the manufacturer’s cut-sheets, warranty of materials (if applicable), and any proposed deviations to existing materials on site.

4.5. SUB-FACTOR THREE – BASIC CONTRACT SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN AND

BASIC QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (BASIC SOW SECTION A-08)

4.5.1. Minimum criteria is met when the Offeror has provided a Basic Contract Safety and Health Plan

IAW Basic SOW A-08, Basic SOW Appendix C, and that is complaint with the Government

Safety Requirements Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) 01 35 26.

4.5.2. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal demonstrated the Offeror has an understanding and is compliant with asbestos and lead based paint (LBP) abatement listed in the General Requirements

Appendices Section 4.5.

4.5.3. Minimum criteria is met when Offeror’s Quality Control Plan meets the requirements outlined in the Basic SOW A-022 and UFSG 45 00.00 10, and has addressed at a minimum the following:

1) Adequate general roofing quality control

2) Adequate applicable roofing construction performance

3) Identify personnel, procedures, instructions, tests, forms, and records to be used

4) Clearly identify the Quality Control Officer

5) Identify the authority and responsibilities of all quality control personnel

6) Identify procedures for reviewing and approving all shop drawings, product data samples or other submittals before submission to the Contracting Officer

7) Identify procedures for obtaining field measurements

8) Identify method of documenting quality control operation, inspection, and testing of both prime and subcontract work including samples of proposed forms

9) Identify method of documenting and tracking deficiencies including responsibilities and procedures for correcting deficiencies

4.5.4. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days

Away, Restricted and/or Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates are equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 238160.

4.6. SUB-FACTOR FOUR – BONDING CAPABILITY

4.6.1. Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes a prequalification a letter from a surety with an A.M. Best rating of ―”A”, stating the offeror would be bonded for a minimum aggregate amount of at least 20% of their proposed price for the IDIQ contract. The letter also identifies a single project bond amount for the seed project.

5. VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE –

5.1. Past performance information will be gathered from Offeror submissions, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance

Assessment Reports System (CPARS) and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered to assess how well Offeror performed on past contracts.

5.1.1. Recency is defined as performance less than three years old from the issue date of the RFP. The

Government will not consider performance on contracts or task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

5.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of roofing services described in this RFP.

5.2. Past performance will be rated on an ―acceptable or ―unacceptable basis using the following ratings.

Rating Description

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. (see note below)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, ―unknown shall be considered ―acceptable.

6. VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

6.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness; and proposal includes a signed copy of the Model

Contract Standard Form (SF) 1442, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by Section L, paragraph 7 “Contract Documentation”. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or award.

6.2. The proposal included documentation of adequate financial resources such as a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

6.3. The proposal contains evidence that the Offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting IAW FAR 52.219-14.

7. Discussions:

7.1. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that

Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions. Offerors responses to Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final

Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

8. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS –

8.1. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements as detailed in the SOW, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.