Atch 03 Evaluation Factors.pdf

FA9101-23-R-B018

AUTOMATED FLIP TOWER

SECTION M – SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS

FA9101-23-P-B

Attachment

PROVISION M001 - SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov. As stated in Atch 02, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive, it is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present the best technical proposal and price in the proposal submission. Should the Contracting Officer determine discussions are necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated and introduces changes or exceptions beyond what was discussed in the ENs, those changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision will be evaluated and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect its overall rating.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Rating, Past Performance, and Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract for the Automated Flip Tower Project but reserves the right to make no award.

PROVISION M002 - EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals by rating the proposals by the Technical Rating, Past Performance and Price.

Factor 1: Technical Rating Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Relative Importance of Factors. The relative importance of the Technical Rating, Past Performance and Price is as follows: In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Technical Rating and Past Performance are each significantly more important than Price, but Price is still a substantial factor.

Factor 1: Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical Requirement will receive one of the color ratings described in, Table 1 – Technical Rating (adjectival color shown below) depicts how each technical proposal will be rated.

Performance Requirements

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Green Acceptable Technical proposal meets or exceeds all requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Technical proposal does not meet requirements. It has an inadequate approach and inadequate understanding of the requirements. Proposal is non-awardable.

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC#b15304

Factor 2: Past Performance The past performance evaluation results in a rating of the government’s expectation of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

Evaluation Process. The government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance for recency and relevancy and quality as it relates to this acquisition. The past performance rating is assigned based off the totality of the past performance information evaluated. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; questionnaire responses from Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and FeeDetermining Officials (see Past Performance Customer Questionnaire Attachment); the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

At the onset of the evaluation of past performance, the government will first evaluate whether that past performance is recent. Recent performance is defined as work that is on-going or has any period of performance within the last four years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Past performance information that is not on-going or has as a period of performance within the last four years from the date of this issuance will be determined to be not recent and will not be further evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment Next, the Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine its relevancy. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent contracts. For the scope of this project relevant is defined as performance of efforts involving design-build and construction that involved similar scope as described in the Requirements Document and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, including safety and security requirements, contract type, contract environment, subcontractor interaction and price. Relevant contracts include experience and expertise in the area of design and build construction activities that may include concrete, towers, sidewalks, buildings and other structures similar in nature to the work found within the SOW.

The Government will also evaluate offeror’s past performance excavating and grading in assessing past performance relevancy.

TABLE 2-PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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

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

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

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Past performance determined to be not relevant will not receive a quality evaluation.

In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recentefforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed.

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing past performance:

TABLE 3 QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N)/WHITE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 4 - Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 4- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

Factor 3: Price

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Price Volume for completeness (i.e., compliance with the Price instruction in Section L), price reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Proposals will not be scored, ranked, nor rated.

(1) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) proposed to include all CLINs and options. The TEP calculation is addressed below.

LINE ITEM DESCRIPTION

Target Flip System

SOURCE PRIME/

SUBCONTRACTO

R

BASIS OF

ESTIMATE

FY16 FY17 FY18 TOTAL

PRICE

0001 Design

Foundation Labor Foundation Material Towers Labor Towers Material Rotational Arm Labor Rotational Arm Material Power/Lighting Labor Power/Lighting Material Miscellaneous Profit

0002 CONSTRUCTION

Foundation Labor Foundation Material Towers Labor Towers Material Rotational Arm Labor Rotational Arm Material Power/Lighting Labor Power/Lighting Material Miscellaneous Profit

0003 TRAINING AND

DOCUMENTATION

Training Material Training Labor Documentation Manuals/Reports Miscellaneous

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Profit Total Evaluated Price

(2) Price reasonableness will be established by competition and determined primarily by comparison with other offers submitted. The proposed costs/prices also will be compared with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

(3) Unbalanced Pricing will be established through the application of price analysis techniques.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated and poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the proposed price is materially unbalanced between line items or sub-line items for the basic requirement and any options.