Atch 18 - Section M - Eval Factors.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

M-1.1. A tradeoff source selection process will obtain best value in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 31 Mar 2016, and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection, 2019 Edition.

M-1.2. An award can be made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that it is in the best interest of the Government to do so.

M-1.3. Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to award without discussions. Should the SSA determine that discussions are necessary, a competitive range determination will be made prior to conducting. This range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of all factors.

M-1.4. The Contracting Officer (CO) will notify offerors in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. That notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered.

M-1.5. Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be issued to offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to ENs and final proposal revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

M-1.6. FPRs will be submitted by each offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Unexplained, or inadequately explained, revisions or exceptions to terms and conditions may significantly impact evaluation of the offeror's proposal. Significant departures from previous proposal submissions may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

M-2.1. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical Capability, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Past Performance is the most important. Past Performance and Technical Capability when combined are significantly more important than price; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than price, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the government.

M-2.2. Evaluating Factor 1: Technical Capability.

M-2.2.1. Technical will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable. There are three subfactors under the Technical evaluation factor. All three subfactors are equal in importance and all three must be found acceptable for the Technical Capability factor to be determined acceptable. Any technical proposal determined unacceptable will be ineligible for award. Proposals will be evaluated on the offeror’s demonstration of the following for each subfactor:

M-2.2.2. Subfactor A, Program Management Plan. The offeror provided an effective integrated management approach that demonstrates an organizational structure that consists of an appropriate leadership hierarchy, assigned roles and responsibilities, lines of authority, and cohesive functional relationships to meet satisfactory performance of all the program areas noted in the SABER General Provisions at Attachment 1. The offeror provided a compressive communications approach that consists of effective lines of communication, reporting, progress checkpoints, and interfaces between management, technical staff, subcontractors/teaming partners, and the Government to ensure continuity and mission success.

M-2.2.3. Subfactor B, Staffing Plan. The offeror provided an effective integrated approach for hiring and retaining qualified management and technical personnel for the job categories/positions required by the SABER General Provisions at Attachment 1. The offeror’s staffing plan stated the qualifications of positions outlined in the General Provisions.

M-2.2.4. Subfactor C, Seed Project. The offeror provided a proposal for Langley Project MUHJ 20-4072, Renovate Interior Auditorium of Facility 15. The offeror’s proposal captured all required labor, tools, materials, supplies, equipment and all other items necessary to successfully complete the project. The offeror’s proposal included an AF Form 3064, Contract Progress Schedule that properly denoted all expected disciplines and efforts required to complete the project in a feasible manner that coincides with the requested period of performance of one hundred thirty (130) calendar days. The offeror’s proposal included a detailed price proposal that identified the necessary line items/tasks from the applicable R.S. Means guides dated 2020. The offeror’s price proposal properly included all expected disciplines required to complete the project and each discipline was properly priced in accordance with R.S. Means at an expected level of effort per the statement of work. The offeror’s proposal included a properly detailed AF Form 66, Schedule of Material Submittals.

M-2.2.5. Factor 1 Ratings. Each subfactor above will be assigned a technical rating from the following chart. The ratings for each of the subfactors will focus on each offeror’s proposal meeting or not meeting the requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Ratings for Factor 1

M-2.2.6. Evaluating Factor 2: Past Performance.

M-2.2.6.1. A Performance Confidence Rating will be assigned to each offeror based on three aspects of past performance evaluation, (1) Recency, (2) Relevancy, and (3) Quality. Past performance information (PPI) determined non-recent or not relevant will not be further evaluated.

M-2.2.6.2. Recency. Each PPI must be determined recent in order to be considered relevant. Recent is an active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last five years as of the release date of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of five years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent.

M-2.2.6.3. Relevancy. The following criteria will be used to determine the relevancy of each recent PPI submitted:

Relevancy Ratings for Factor 2

M-2.2.6.4. Quality. The Government will review all recent and relevant past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned, but rather the offeror’s overall record of performance quality will be used to assign a confidence rating.

M-2.2.6.5. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating, as follows:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings for Factor 2

M-2.2.6.6. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation subfactor; or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(4), communications must be held with any offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-2.2.6.7. Offerors without a record of relevant and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably, and as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for this factor.

M-2.2.7. Evaluating Factor 3: Price

M-2.2.7.1. Price proposals will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price. Comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. The basis for a fair and reasonable determination will be the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP consists of the total proposed prices for the base period, option years 1 through 4, and 50 percent of the option year 4 price to represent the price for the optional extension of services in accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. In the event that reasonableness cannot be determined based on competition or comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), other than cost and pricing data shall be requested from the offeror’s.

M-2.2.7.2. The Government will evaluate all option Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) in accordance with FAR Provision 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. This does not obligate the Government to exercise any options during performance of the contract.

M-2.2.7.3. The Government’s price evaluation will determine if an offeror’s proposed coefficient rates and minimal design fees are fair, reasonable, balanced, and reflect an understanding of the solicitation requirements. Unreasonably high or unrealistically low coefficient rates or minimum design fees, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirements or the coefficient/minimum design amount represent an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M-2.2.7.4. There is a reasonable expectation of competition for this requirement, thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an offeror’s proposed prices appear unrealistically low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.