Attach 15 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FA300220R0007

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Award:

1.1 This is a Performance-Price Trade-off (PPT) source selection conducted in accordance with

(IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and the Department of Defense (DoD)

Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition website, https://acquisition.gov.

A contract will be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 as supplemented, and whose:

(1) Proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is a Small Business;

(2) Proposed technical subfactors all receive “Acceptable” ratings;

(3) Proposal receives a Performance Confidence assessment rating of “Substantial

Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Neutral Confidence”;

(4) Proposed Price is determined fair and reasonable and balanced;

(5) Proposal provides documentation of an approved Accounting System; and

(6) Proposal is determined by the SSA to represent the best value to the Government.

1.1.1 This is a Performance-Price Trade-off (PPT) and for those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered approximately equal to price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2 The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Vance Base Operations Support

(BOS) requirement. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors; therefore, the initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

1.2 After initial evaluation of each Offeror’s Technical, Price and Past Performance, award may be made to the Offeror that represents the best value to the Government without entering into discussions. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance) or respond to adverse past performance to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the

Contracting Officer (CO) reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revisions.

https://acquisition.gov/

1.2.1 The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR

15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to further 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. If an Offeror’s proposal is determined to no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of an elimination decision will be provided to unsuccessful Offerors

IAW FAR 15.503. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request to receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Pre-Award Debriefing of Offerors or 15.506, Postaward Debriefing of Offers.

1.2.1.1 If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to establish a competitive range and hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation

Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions submitted to the Government in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

1.2.1.2 After conclusion of discussions and receipt of FPRs, the Government will make award to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

1.3 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements IAW Section L, paragraph 5.9.1.

The Government reserves the right to determine any proposed exceptions unacceptable.

1.4 Accounting System. An adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion. However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror with a DFARS 252.242-7006 compliant accounting system determined by DCAA, the cognizant DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or an independent CPA. Note: Acceptability of the Independent CPA review is contingent on

Contracting Officer approval.

1.5 Pre-award Survey. A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is determined responsible

IAW FAR Subpart 9.1. In determining contractor responsibility, the CO may require the assistance of

DCMA to perform a Pre-Award Survey.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors for Award:

2.1 Evaluation Areas: Selecting an Offeror for award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against three primary factors as outlined in Table M.1, Factors and Subfactors: (1) Technical, (2)

Past Performance, and (3) Price. Factors and Subfactors are detailed below. A proposal that does not meet the requirements of the solicitation may not be eligible for award.

2.2 Evaluation Approach: A team of Government personnel will evaluate proposals. The content of written proposals, as well as information derived from discussions/ negotiations, if discussions are held, will be evaluated to determine the Technical acceptability or unacceptability of an

Offeror’s ability to supply the services that meet the user’s needs.

Table M.1 - Factors and Subfactors

Factor and Subfactors Criteria Description

Factor 1

Subfactor 1

Subfactor 2

Subfactor 3

Subfactor 4

Subfactor 5

Technical

Fire & Emergency Services (F&ES)

Network and IT Infrastructure

Civil Engineering

Logistics

Program Management and Staffing Approach

Factor 2 Past Performance

Factor 3 Price

2.3 Relative Order of Importance. The Government will assign each subfactor In Factor 1

(Technical) a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. Within the Factor 1, all Subfactors 1-5 are of equal importance. If any Subfactor 1-5 is determined to be technically unacceptable, then

Factor 1 will be determined technically unacceptable. This is a Performance-Price Trade-off (PPT) source selection and, for those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered approximately equal to price.

3.0 Evaluation Criteria:

3.1 Factor 1 - Technical: The Factors and Subfactors, listed below in Table M.2 – Technical

Ratings, will be evaluated using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the Offeror’s proposal is

“Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and

Notices to Offerors, of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. If an Offeror’s proposal has an

“Unacceptable” rating for any Technical Subfactor, then Factor 1 and the Technical proposal volume will be determined unacceptable.

Table M.2 – Technical Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

3.1.1 Subfactor 1 - Fire & Emergency Services (F&ES) (PWS Section 18):

3.1.1.1 The proposal will be evaluated based upon the Offeror’s proposed specific, comprehensive approach for protection of Vance AFB community, personnel, property and the environment 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The standard is met when the Offeror:

a) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach demonstrating the capability to process and dispatch appropriate emergency assistance, from voice and automated receiving devices;

b) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach demonstrating the capability to process and forward routine administrative calls and notifications with a qualified and certified

Emergency Communication Center (ECC) operator;

c) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach demonstrating the capability to respond with the required number of qualified personnel and appropriate equipment to all fires, fire alarms, aircraft incidents, automobile accidents, hazardous material incidents, rescues, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) incidents and miscellaneous fires/emergency situations;

d) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach demonstrating the capability to perform emergency medical response IAW PWS paragraph 18.1.2.2.6.9.;

e) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach demonstrating the capability to ensure F&ES vehicles are maintained in a constant state of readiness, and ensure all vehicles are inspected, tested and maintained as required by applicable directives, instructions, regulations, standards, National Fire Codes, manufacturers recommended instructions and military technical orders.

3.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Network and IT Infrastructure (PWS Section 7):

3.1.2.1 The standard is met when the Offeror:

a) Provides a comprehensive approach demonstrating the capability to operate and maintain the Network Control Center; and operation, maintenance and repair of the IT infrastructure that supports the internal and external connectivity of the base.

3.1.3 Subfactor 3 – Civil Engineering (PWS Section 10, 11, 12):

3.1.3.1 The standard is met when the proposed approach:

a) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach to respond to high priority work orders immediately and complete/eliminate the situation or downgrade the work order priority classification;

b) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach demonstrating the capability to remove debris, snow, and ice from paved areas including streets, airfields, walkways, parking lots, and other similar surfaces IAW base snow and ice removal and control plan;

c) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach to manage and direct projects from design to construction completion using cradle-to-grave concepts;

d) Provides specific, comprehensive approach for construction inspection for all facility projects performed on the installation and associated properties;

e) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach demonstrating compliance with all environmental compliance aspects of the civil engineering water programs.

3.1.4 Subfactor 4 – Logistics:

3.1.4.1 The standard is met when the Offeror:

a) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach to manage warehouse functions to include storing and accounting for all in-warehouse supply and equipment; and

b) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach for demonstrating how they will maintain a robust, reliable and safe fleet of vehicles capable of fulfilling performance requirements, ensuring vehicles are operable, safe & ready for use; and maintain a fleet Mission

Capability (MC) Rate of 90% or greater.

3.1.5 Subfactor 5 - Program Management and Staffing Approach:

3.1.5.1 The standard is met with the Offeror:

a) Provides a specific, comprehensive organizational structure that the company will employ while performing this effort, to include lines of authority;

b) Provides a specific, comprehensive work breakdown structure by shift, skill classification and work unit for the basic contract and all option years. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

(Section J, Attachment 11) shall be submitted and include details of onsite personnel by skill mix, grade, and numbers; a detailed description, with the proposed roles and responsibilities, to include cross-utilization and position qualifications/descriptions sufficient to meet projected workload/PWS requirements. The proposed work breakdown structure will be incorporated into the contract upon award; and

c) Provides a specific, comprehensive approach to perform on the first day of contract operations to include the following:

1) Provides a detailed strategy and timeline to recruit, train, and qualify and/or certify personnel during the 45-day mobilization period resulting in a staffed and qualified contractor workforce performing on the first day of contract operations.

2) Provides a detailed equipment and vehicle inventory which will be available for use to support required performance on the first day of contract performance, and will remain available for the life of the contract, to meet the requirements of the PWS.

3) Provides a specific, comprehensive capability of 100% coverage for custodial maintenance of designated Child Development Centers and Youth Center facilities

IAW AFI 34-248 Child Development Centers, and AFI 34-249 Youth Centers; and providing restroom/locker room cleaning services; emptying waste/recycling containers/dumpsters based on historical data upon contract start date.

3.2. Evaluation of Past Performance

3.2.1 Evaluation Process. Past performance will be evaluated as an indicator of an Offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully, and as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the

Offeror’s ability to perform successfully. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government assessing Offerors’s past performance history that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The Past Performance evaluation considers each

Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are similar to the solicitation requirements and the quality of the Offeror’s performance record. 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 Past Performance Retrieval

System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS);

Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with

Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

3.2.1.1 Recency is defined as at least 12 months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Performance efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

3.2.1.2 Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in the Solicitation. For each

Past Performance effort submitted (no more than six (6) contracts), relevancy will be determined by the similarity to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexity of the Offerors’ performance.

An aggregate relevancy rating will be determined based on the Relevancy Assessment Matrix -

Section J, Attachment 9. Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Section M, Table M.3, IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Performance efforts that do not meet the relevancy criteria will not be further evaluated.

3.2.2 The Government will use the past performance relevancy ratings and descriptions as outlined in Table M.3 below:

Table M.3 – Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality

(how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. 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 resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. Offerors may have the opportunity to address any adverse past performance obtained in which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment.

3.2.4 Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings: The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table M.4 IAW DoD Source

Selection Procedures, based on an Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. The relevancy rating will be based on the scope, magnitude and complexity of up to six (6) recent contracts with an aggregate rating determined using the Relevancy Assessment Matrix – Section J, Attachment

9. As a result of the relevancy assessments and the quality of reported performance of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive a past performance confidence rating at the factor level as outlined in table below:

Table M.4 - Past Performance Confidence Ratings

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.

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 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.

3.3 Evaluation of Price

3.3.1. The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s Price

Proposal (Volume III), as required by Section L, as described below. Any other data provided by the Offeror within Volume III that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and price analysis will be performed to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable IAW FAR

15.404-1.

3.3.2 Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by Section L, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable

IAW the proposal analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1 based on each Offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed should correspond to the requirements of the PWS;

therefore, a very low price or a price of zero may be considered unreasonable. If the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

3.3.3 Balanced Pricing: In addition, proposed unit prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing

IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An

Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the CO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.3.4 The sum of all FFP CLINs, for the Base Period and each Option Period including Incentive

Options and Mobilization, will form the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). All CLIN pricing shall be provided in Section B of the solicitation. However, Not-to-Exceed/Estimated Cost

Reimbursable CLINs X002, X003, X026, X034, X049 will not be evaluated for award decision purposes and, therefore, are not included in the TEP.

3.3.5 Completeness: Any Offeror who fails to comply with the criteria outlined in Section L, paragraph 4.0 and its subparagraphs may be considered ineligible for award.

3.3.6 The contract will also include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract for a period not to exceed six (6) months beyond the date the Option to Extend Services is exercised. In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend Services, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed (specifically for the period preceding the exercise of the Option to Extend Services) will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to the Option to Extend Services. The Option to Extend Services option rates will only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the

Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement.

3.3.7 The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, with the potential to extend the contract for a period up to seven years (base year plus four 1-year option periods and two possible 1-year incentive option periods). In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, the

Government’s evaluation of price outlined herein will apply to all Options. The Option rates may only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement

(End of Attachment)