Attachment 0003 Basis for Award.pdf

Attachment 0003

BASIS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a competitive acquisition for the single award of a Firm Fixed Price contract, with the exception of the tenant customer Demand Maintenance Orders (DMOs), which will be Time-and-Materials (T&M). Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, represents the best overall value to the Government, given the outcome of the of the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s technical proposal, past performance, small business participation plan, and cost/price proposal. In selecting the best overall offer for award, the Government will consider the quality offered, which includes all non-price factors, and the evaluated price. The relative quality of offers will be based upon the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s ability to meet the minimum performance requirements of this solicitation and the risk of nonperformance, defective performance, or late performance under the resulting contract. The quality of offers will be compared to the difference in the overall price to the Government. The Government may award on the basis of a proposal with superior ratings, even though it may result in a higher price to the Government. No award will be made to an Offeror who has received a marginal or unacceptable rating in any factor or subfactor.

The Government reserves the right to not award at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds. An award under this solicitation in no way obligates the Government to obligate additional dollars or exercise any option periods.

Army Contracting Command – Rock Island intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the Government.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate the following key points, factors, and subfactors using either the Technically Acceptable (TA) approach or the Tradeoff (TO) approach. The evaluation will be divided into three phases as shown below; Offerors must receive an Acceptable rating on all three key points in Phase 1 in order to be further considered for award and move forward to Phase 2. Offerors must receive an Acceptable rating on all four key points in Phase 2 in order to be further considered for award and move forward to Phase 3.

Phase 1:

Technical Experience Key Points:

Key Point #1 – HVAC Monitoring and Maintenance Services Experience (TA)

Key Point #2 – GFEBS Experience (TA) Key Point #3 – BAS/DDC Controls Experience (TA)

Phase 2:

Plans and Programs:

Key Point #1 – Phase In/Phase Out Plan (TA)

Key Point #2 – Contingency Plan (TA) Key Point #3 – Chiller/Boiler Operations Plan (TA) Key Point #4 – Quality Assurance Plan (TA)

Phase 3:

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor A - Management Plan (Tradeoff (TO)) Subfactor B - Work Management Plans (TO) Subfactor C - DDC Operation Plan (TO) Subfactor D - Sample Task (TO)

Factor 2 – Cost/Price (TO) Factor 3 – Past Performance (TO) Factor 4 – Small Business Participation (TA)

PHASE 1 (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

3. TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE EVALUATION APPROACH

Under this approach, the following key points will be evaluated first and rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Offerors must receive an Acceptable rating on all three key points in Phase 1 to be further considered for award and move forward to Phase 2.

Technical Experience:

KEY POINT #1: HVAC Monitoring and Maintenance Services Experience (TA), (PWS Section 1.2):

The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposal to determine if the Offeror demonstrates the required experience as outlined in the Instructions to Offerors under Phase 1, Key Point #1.

KEY POINT #2: GFEBS Experience (TA), (PWS Sections 2.1.7.3.6, 2.1.7.3.6.1, 2.2.19, 2.3.3, and 5.3):

The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposal to determine if the

Instructions to Offerors under Phase 1, Key Point #2.

KEY POINT #3: BAS/DDC Controls Experience (TA), (PWS Sections 2.1.7.3.7,

2.1.7.3.9 and 5.8.1.12&13, 5.8.3):

The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposal to determine if the

Instructions to Offerors under Phase 1, Key Point #3.

PHASE 2 (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The following key points will be evaluated and rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Offerors must receive an Acceptable rating on all four key points in Phase 2 to be further considered for award and move forward to Phase 3.

Plans and Programs:

KEY POINT #1: Phase In/Phase Out Plan (TA), (PWS Section 2.1.2):

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a sound, well-developed Phase In/Phase Out Plan.

KEY POINT #2: Contingency Plan (TA), (PWS Section 2.1.13):

TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE APPROACH RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable For HVAC, GFEBS and BAS/DDC Controls experience: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable For HVAC, GFEBS and BAS/DDC Controls experience: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

degree to which the Offeror provides a sound, well-developed Contingency Plan.

KEY POINT #3: Chiller/Boiler Operations Plan (TA) (PWS Section 5.8):

degree to which the Offeror provides a sound, well-developed Chiller/Boiler Operations Plan.

KEY POINT #4: Quality Assurance Plan (TA) (PWS Part 3):

degree to which the Offeror provides a sound, well-developed Quality Assurance Plan.

PHASE 3 (Tradeoff)

4. TRADEOFF EVALUATION APPROACH.

For evaluation factors and subfactors that have a greater performance risk, the TO approach will be used. TO will be used on the following:

Factor 1 - Technical

Subfactor A – Management Plan (TO) Subfactor B – Work Management Plans (TO) Subfactor C – DDC Operation Plan (TO) Subfactor D – Sample Task (TO)

Factor 2 – Cost/Price (TO) Factor 3 – Past Performance (TO)

TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE APPROACH RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable For the Phase In/Phase Out Plan, Contingency Plan, Chiller/Boiler Operations Plan, and Quality Assurance Plan: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable For the Phase In/Phase Out Plan, Contingency Plan, Chiller/Boiler Operations Plan, and Quality Assurance Plan: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The overarching evaluation approach for all TO subfactors is as follows:

1. Adequacy of Response: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the PWS.

2. Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements.

Factor 1 – Technical (Subfactors A-D):

Technical proposals will receive one of the following ratings in Table 1 to reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet an acceptable approach and understanding of the requirements. This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 - COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is

Factor 2 – Cost/Price

Adjectival ratings will not be used for Offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. For award purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) will be added to a total sum (contract value). The Government will evaluate the TEP proposed in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment 0004. The Offeror’s TEP for evaluation will include a 60-day phase-in transition period and a 10-month base year, with four (4) 12-month option periods to include a six-month extension. Evaluation of the options will not obligate the Government to exercise any of the options.

Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. Past performance proposals will be rated with a combined performance confidence assessment which includes recency, relevancy, and quality.

The Government will evaluate Past Performance using Table 2 and Table 3 as shown below:

TABLE 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Rating

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.

TABLE 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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.

5. TRADEOFF RELATIVE IMPORTANCE.

All subfactors under the Technical Factor are equal. The Technical Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor and significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will become increasingly important as the non-price factors equalize. The Small Business Participation Factor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis; to be awardable, an Offeror must receive a rating of “acceptable” under the Small Business Participation Factor.

6. TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE EVALUATION APPROACH – (SMALL BUSINESS

PARTICIPATION ONLY)

Factor 4 - Small Business Participation (TA) Small Business Participation must be rated no less than Acceptable.

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

7. DEFINITIONS

RECENCY: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant; 5 years. As it pertains to small business participation, is a measure of the elapsed time since the contract was performed from the closing date of this solicitation; 3 years.

RELEVANCY: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/ teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

QUALITY: Is the composite of materiel attributes including performance features and characteristics of a production or service to satisfy a customer's given need.

STRENGTH: An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

SIGNIFICANT STRENGTH: Is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

DEFICIENCY: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

WEAKNESS: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

8. FACTORS and SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED.

Factor 1: Technical -- Subfactor A: Management Plan (TO) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a sound, well-developed Management Plan (PWS Sections 2.1.4, 2.1.7, 2.1.8, and 2.3.1). The Government will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to the requirements set forth in the Instructions to Offerors of the solicitation for “Factor 1, Subfactor A – Management Plan.”

Factor 1: Technical -- Subfactor B: Work Management Plans (TO) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a sound, well-developed Work Management Plan (PWS Section

2.2 and 2.3). The Government will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to the requirements set forth in the Instructions to Offerors of the solicitation for “Factor 1, Subfactor B - Work Management Plans.”

Factor 1: Technical -- Subfactor C: DDC Operation Plan (TO) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a sound, well-developed DDC Operation Plan (PWS Section 5.8) The Government will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to the requirements set forth in the Instructions to Offerors of the solicitation for “Factor 1, Subfactor C – DDC Operation Plan.”

Factor 1: Technical -- Subfactor D: Sample Task (TO) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a sound, well-developed response to the sample task. The Government will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to the requirements set forth in the Instructions to Offerors of the solicitation for “Factor 1, Subfactor D - Sample Task.”

Factor 2: Cost/Price (TO)

The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated as follows:

Price analysis techniques will be used to determine price reasonableness. The price factor will be evaluated, but not adjectively rated. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Contracting Officer is responsible for the determination of price reasonableness. The cost proposals will be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

The Government intends to evaluate price reasonableness IAW FAR Part 15.404-1(b), relying primarily upon competition. The Government expects adequate competition, and a comparison will be made of the TEP received in response to the solicitation. The TEP will be the sum of the Phase-In Transition Period, Base Period, and each Option Period to include the six-month extension IAW FAR 52.217-8 identified in the Pricing Matrix.

Evaluation of Option to Extend Services: The Government will include a calculated estimate for the Option to Extend Services under FAR 52.217-8 in the TEP. For evaluation purposes, the Option to Extend Services will be calculated as the Offeror's evaluated price for option period four divided in half to account for 6 months of services.

This calculation by the Government is automatically summed in the Summary tab of the Price Matrix.

In the event where only one offer is received in response to the solicitation, certified cost or pricing data or other than certified cost or pricing data may be required.

Unbalanced Pricing – As part of the cost evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Instructions to Offerors Cost/Price instructions. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors.

The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

Factor 3: Past Performance (TO)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the requirements of the PWS. The Government will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to the requirements set forth in the Instructions to Offerors of the solicitation for “Factor 3, Past Performance,” and other information available to the Government, including, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Contracting Officers and CORs/COTRs.

IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance.

Factor 4: Small Business Participation (TA)

THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS

ONLY. SMALL BUSINESSES WILL BE GIVEN AN ACCEPTABLE RATING.

Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s Small

Business Participation Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. The Government will consider both the degree to which an Offeror meets or exceeds any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an Offeror meets or exceeds. The Government will consider two areas:

1. Proposed Small Business Participation

2. Commitment to Small Business

The Government has established the following goals for this procurement, based on total contract value (including options):

Small Business (SB): 15 % Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 5 % Women Owned Small Business (WOSB): 3 % HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone): 3 % Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB): 3 % Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 3 %

The Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Small Business Participation Plan Attachment 0008 will be evaluated against the Government’s Goal for each socio-economic category. The Government will compare the Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation for each category to the Government’s goal. The proposed plan will also be evaluated on the extent of participation for multiple socio-economic categories. In addition, the proposed plan will be evaluated with regard to the percentage of total dollars going to Small Businesses.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written statement of its established procedures for timely payments to small business subcontractors IAW FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns for those recent contracts for which it was required (contracts performed within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s compliance with reporting requirements on Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) or Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) and achievement on each goal stated within the subcontracting plan as reported on each ISR or the goals stated in the associated commercial subcontracting plan and reported on each SSR, IAW FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan for those recent contracts under which it was required (contracts performed within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.