Attach 12 Section M.pdf

Solicitation: FA469020R0005 Attachment 12

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD (10 Aug 2020)

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1. Source Selection Methodology. This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures

5315.3. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price with past performance considered significantly more important than price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is compliant with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance of the higher priced 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 will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. General

1.2.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award a target of five

(5) contracts as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award more than or fewer than the target number of five (5) contracts as a result of this solicitation. See On/Off Ramp Procedures, Attachment 3, for details on the process to remove and replace contractors after award.

1.2.2. Number of Offers. The Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

1.2.3. Guaranteed Minimum. At the time of award, the Government will issue a task order for the minimum guarantee amount to each of the successful contractors that are awarded a MACC.

The awardees guaranteed minimum will be satisfied by attendance of the MACC Post-Award Conference.

1.2.4. Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition. among the most highly rated proposals.

1.2.5 Seed Project. Funding for the initial project is not presently available. The Government is not obligated to award the project, however, offerors are required to guarantee pricing for the initial project for 240 days, as the Government reserves the right to award the project as a Task Order at a later date should funds become available. Award of subsequent task orders including the seed project, will be made using the criteria as set forth in the associated Fair Opportunity Proposal Request.

2. EVALUATION PROCESS. The evaluation process to be used is as follows. Successful completion of each step is required to advance to the next step in the evaluation process.

Step 1 – Perform compliance review on all timely proposals to assess compliance with terms and conditions of the solicitation, completeness and eligibility, submission of all required volumes, completed representation and certifications, and acknowledgement of all amendments.

Step 2 – Evaluate technical proposals for technical acceptability.

Step 3 – Evaluate the price for reasonableness. Proposals deemed reasonable will be ranked by price, lowest first, and proceed to the next step.

Step 4 – Assess past performance confidence beginning with the lowest priced, reasonable, technically acceptable offeror. Past performance evaluations will continue until the Government identifies a target of ten (10) lowest priced, reasonable, technically acceptable offerors with “Substantial Confidence” ratings or until the Government evaluates all reasonable, technically acceptable proposals.

Step 5 – Conduct an integrated assessment of the price and past performance rating of all proposals for which a past performance evaluation was completed. The SSA will determine the offerors awarded a MACC IDIQ and those that will be entered into the on ramp pool. The contractors selected for the on-ramp pool will be ranked and notified of their standing upon award of the basic IDIQ.

3. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

3.1. Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factors, in descending order of importance, will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Technical Past Performance Price

When combined, Technical and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price.

3.2. Volume I, Completed RFP

Initially, the Government will evaluate all timely proposals for compliance with the requirements of the request for proposal, in accordance with Section L, Instruction to Offerors. This will assess submission of all required volumes and documents, compliance with terms and conditions of the solicitation, completed representation and certifications, and acknowledgement of all amendments. All offerors that pass this compliance check will proceed to the next step.

3.3. Volume II, Technical Factor

3.3.1. General. The Technical factor is comprised of the offeror’s proposed solution to the Seed Project. The offerror’s proposal must demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required in the Seed Project. Offeror’s proposal shall be a 65% Design Submittal Package, which includes both the drawings and specifications that conform to the standards in the General Provisions (Attachment 1) and incorporate the design features identified in the Seed Project Statement of Work (Attachment 19). The Seed Project Design Requirements (Attachment 22) must be indexed so the Government can easily locate each design feature incorporated into the 65% Design Submittal Package. The Government will not search for unidentified or misidentified locations.

3.3.1.1. Drawing Standards. Drawings must be legible, must meet the definition of 65% design as defined in paragraph 1, Definitions, of the General Provisions (Attachment 1), and must conform to the requirements of paragraph 4, Contractor Prepared Design Documents of the General Provisions (Attachment 1).

3.3.1.2. Specification Standards. Specifications must meet the definition of 65% design as defined in paragraph 1, Definitions, of the General Provisions (Attachment 1), and must conform to the requirements of paragraph 4, Contractor Prepared Design Documents of the General Provisions (Attachment 1).

3.3.2. Technical Rating. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the adequacy of the offeror’s proposal in response to the requirements indicated in the Seed Project on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether measure of merit is met. One technical rating will be assigned to the Technical factor using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.3.3. Measure of Merit. In order to be considered acceptable, an Offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the Seed Project from a technical standpoint by incorporating all necessary features into their 65% Design Submittal Package. The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror submits in Volume II, a 65% Design Submittal Package that contains all documents required in Section L and the design incorporates a minimum of 95% of the design features listed in Attachment 22, Design Requirements. Please refer to Section L – paragraph 2.3 for submittal requirements.

3.4. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

3.4.1. General. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/teaming members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/teaming members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users’ needs, including quality, cost, and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/teaming members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3.4.2. Past Performance Assessment. In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

3.4.2.1. Sources of Information. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

3.4.2.2. Adverse Past Performance. Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror or teaming member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3.4.2.3. Critical Subcontractors. The evaluation of the offeror’s/teaming members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3.4.2.4. Key Personnel. The evaluation of the offeror’s/teaming members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3.4.2.5 Past Performance. When assessing relevance and past performance confidence ratings, past performance information demonstrating performance as a Prime contractor is considered more important than performance as a subcontractor.

3.4.3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission. In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror shall submit an individual delivery/task order for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.4.4. Relevancy. 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 five (5) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Multidisciplined projects that encompass a variety of subspecialties will be considered more relevant than those projects that only address single specialties, as these more closely address the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

A more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

• VERY RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work exceeding $500,000, and the contractor performed as prime contractor.

• RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on project(s) exceeding $250,000, and the contractor performed as a prime contractor.

• SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Past/present performance effort involved, at a minimum, single-disciplined construction work, exceeding $250,000, as either a prime contractor or subcontractor.

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

3.4.5. Quality. Past performance information deemed recent and relevant will then be evaluated for the quality of the performance. The quality of past performance will be determined by the responses to the Past Performance Questionnaires along with details from other sources of information (paragraph 3.4.2.1). Quality is subjective and is heavily dependent on data provided to the evaluation team. The purpose is to anticipate the quality level that can be expected to be received under this contract based on the demonstrated quality of the performance previously provided. A quality rating will not be assigned to each instance of past performance, rather, it will be used to assign a performance confidence rating.

3.4.6. Past Performance Confidence Rating. As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

RATING DEFINITION

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.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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 is 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 and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

3.5. Volume IV, Price Factor

3.5.1. Offers will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. Price based on Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP shall be calculated as the sum of the price proposed for CLINs 0001 through CLIN 0004 of the seed project.

3.5.2. Proposed prices shall be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1. Any offer that is unreasonable or unbalanced is ineligible for award.

3.5.3. Reasonable offers shall be ranked by TEP from lowest to highest.

(End of Provision)