25R0002_SF1442-09MAY2025.pdf

Section C - Description/Specifications/Statement of Work

Requirements

FA462025R0002

This is an acquisition for a design-build renovation project for buildings 2245/2248/2249 at Fairchild AFB, Washington. The project will include the following: Design build effort, demolition, Hazardous Material Survey, abatement, soil testing, structural design and work, water systems, pavement work, storm-water management, utilities work, sewer work, landscaping work, architectural and interior design, temporary facilities, fire safety, exterior walls and roofing, windows, and carpeting per Attachment 2 - Statement or Work and SOW Attachments A-S.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

FA462025R0002

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerers' past perfonnance is considered approximately equal lo price. Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and all supplemental regulations. These regulations are available electronically at https://acquisition.gov/. By submission of a proposal, the offerer accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations, and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors such as small business. The government seeks to award to the offerer who will give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will meet, or exceed, the requirements. The SSA shall make a best value award decision, considering price approximately equal to past performance following the procedures in the solicitation (described below). While the government source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. As a result of this solicitation, the government intends to award one contract.

1.1 Evaluation

The offerer's submission of a competitive project price and relevant performance information must convey to the government that the offerer is capable, possesses technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources to deliver a timely and quality construction project.

Offerers' proposals will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with the proposal instructions as described in Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerers or Quoters. Incomplete proposals submitted by the due date and time of this RFP may be considered incomplete and not evaluated.

Additional elements required for eligibility for award include evaluation criteria related to proposed terms, conditions, and reviews. These elements are independent of the specific evaluation areas and, as such, do not receive a proposal risk assessment or performance confidence assessment rating. To qualify for an award, the following conditions must be met:

• Responsibility - The offerer must be determined responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1.

• Acceptability of Offers - The offerer's proposal must comply with the requirement of law, regulation, and all conditions set forth in the solicitation. The offerer's proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the work requirements within the solicitation and failure to do so may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. This solicitation is a 100% small business set-aside under the National American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. The government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies within an offerer's proposal.

1.2 Price Evaluation

Prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability based on the availability of funds. The PCO shall arrange proposals by price, from lowest to highest.

The price analysis will begin with the lowest priced offerer. If the lowest priced offerer is determined to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance rating and is determined to be responsible, then the lowest priced offerer represents the best value for the government.

The government reserves the right to award the contract to other than the lowest priced offerer. If the lowest priced offerer does not receive a "Substantial Confidence" rating, then the price evaluations will continue until an offerer with "Substantial Confidence" is reached or all proposals have been evaluated. If the lowest priced offerer received a "Substantial Confidence" rating the next lowest offerer will be evaluated for price fair and reasonable. Evaluation of the proposals shall not obligate the government to award a contract.

The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

• Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness if proposed solutions are similar.

• Comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) from 92 CES.

• Price analysis: The process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit.

1.3 Past Performance Confidence Evaluation

Potential sources of performance data include but are not limited to government sources such as:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) - Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

• Questionnaires tailored to the circumstances for this acquisition, through interviews with program managers and Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the government.

• Data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

A past performance evaluation team within the SSEB will conduct a past performance evaluation that examines an offerer's recent and relevant past performance record to assess the government's confidence in the offerer's ability to perform as proposed. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

1.3.1 Recency

Past performance within the past three years from date of solicitation will be considered recent and will be evaluated. Provide data for up to five relevant contracts performed within the last three years from the issuance date of this solicitation for each entity the offerer wants the government to consider.

1.3.2 Relevance

The government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent submitted contracts. For purpose of the evaluation, past performance would demonstrate design-build construction experience for projects between $25,000,000 and $100,000,000. Consideration will be given but not limited to such things as project complexity (design-build), contract type, contract environment, division of company proposing, and subcontractor interaction. A "design-build" project is defined as a single contract that requires the prime contractor to engage architectural, engineering services and construction services to complete the project with the prime contractor being the single point of responsibility. Relevancy will be evaluated as follows:

Relevance Rating

Very Relevant

Description

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant

Somewhat Relevant

Not Relevant

FA462025R0002

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

1.3.3 Quality

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offerer's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

The evaluation of Past Performance will consider the level of quality and performance from predecessor companies, major subcontractors, consultants, or JV partners, whose effort, as demonstrated in the proposal, will significantly influence performance of the proposed construction and/or design-build effort. The ratings of these entities will contribute to the overall rating of the principal offerer.

As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the confidence ratings as described below will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Confidenc Description e Rating

Substanti Based on the offerer's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offerer will successfully perform the al Confide nee required effort.

Satisfacto Based on the offerer's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offerer will successfully ry Confide perform the required effort.

nee

Neutral C No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offerer's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment onfidence rating can be reasonably assigned. The offerer may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited C Based on the offerer's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offerer will successfully perform the onfidence required effort.

No Confid Based on the offerer's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offerer will be able to successfully ence perform the required effort.

In the case of offerers for which there is no information on past contract performance the offerer may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably (see FAR 15.305(a) (2)(iv).) In this case, the offerer's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "neutral."

1.4 Award Evaluation

The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review of all proposals to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L. If the lowest priced offerer is determined to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance rating and is determined to be responsible, then the lowest priced offerer represents the best value for the government and will be awarded a contract contingent to availability of funds. The government reserves the right to award the contract to other than the lowest priced offerer. If the lowest priced offerer does not receive a Substantial Confidence rating, then the evaluations will continue until an offerer with Substantial Confidence is reached or all proposals have been evaluated. A "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating will be considered a higher rating than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating as allowed by DoD Source Selection Procedures.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall make a best value award decision, considering price approximately equal to past performance for the award of the contract, contingent on availability of funds. The government reserves the right to award to a lower confidence rating after evaluations are complete.

The PCO may decide to award to the offerer whose proposal is determined, by the SSA, to be the best value based on the initial proposals received without conducting discussions. The SSAs decision regarding which proposal is most advantageous to the government shall be based on a comparative assessment of