Attachment 03 Section M .pdf

FA8601-20-R-0017

Section M (Section J, Attachment 03)

Evaluation Factors For Award

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS

FOR AWARD (EFFA)

FOR THE

MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION

CONTRACT (MACC)

Solicitation # FA8601-20-R-0017

19 May 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Evaluation Process

1.2 Discussions

1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers

1.4 Contractor Responsibility

1.5 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.6 Competitive Range Determination

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 Factor 1: Technical

2.1.1 SubFactor 1: Management Approach

2.1.2 SubFactor 2: Prior Experience

2.1.3 SubFactor 3: Technical Execution of Sample Project ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.1.4 SubFactor 4: Bonding ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2 Factor 2: Price

2.2.1 Completeness

2.2.2 Unbalanced Pricing

2.2.3 Price Reasonableness

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government will select the proposals with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation 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 lowest-priced technically-acceptable proposal. This Solicitation is subject to clause FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend services, for a six month extension if the Government finds it to be needed.

The Government intends to award to two (2) contractors.

1.1 EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process to be used is as follows:

Phase 1

Step 1. The Government will then review the proposals in each group to ensure compliance with Section L, Instruction to Offerors.

Step 2. The Government will determine if clarification is in the best interest of the Government.

If clarification is not in the best interest of the Government, the Government will remove non-responsive proposals from competition and inform the Offerors.

Step 3. The Government will organize the proposals in order of price proposed for the sample project from lowest to highest.

Phase 2

Step 1. Beginning with the lowest priced proposal and continuing in order of price, the Government will evaluate the proposals for Technical Acceptability. This evaluation process will continue until two small businesses are found technically acceptable or until the pool of proposals have been exhausted.

Step 2. The proposals that are found technically acceptable will be evaluated for Price, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if they are complete, balanced, and reasonable in accordance with Paragraph 2.2 and its subparagraphs listed in Section M, below. The Government reserves the right to issue clarifications or enter into discussions when determined to be in the best interest of the

Government.

NOTE: Number of contracts to be awarded is subject to Paragraph 1.5 of Section M, below.

1.2 DISCUSSIONS

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned that their initial offers should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors if the SSA determines that discussions are necessary at any time during the evaluation of the proposals. 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. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) during any discussion period.

1.3 REJECTION OF UNREASONABLE OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY

In accordance with FAR 9.103, the PCO shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the PCO makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The PCO shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel.

Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the PCO reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the PCO shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

1.5 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award 2 contracts as a result of this competition. The Government reserves the right to award fewer ID/IQ contracts than indicated above, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. Further, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to determine the number of contracts awarded or to award no contracts at all. Offerors may only bid in one of the two pools for initial contract award.

1.6 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. A competitive range is not currently set. The Government reserves the right to set a competitive range. The competitive range determination will be based on evaluation criteria. The Government 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. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees to and accepts all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation Factors or SubFactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review to verify all proposals conform to the requirements set forth in Section L. Thereafter, proposals will be evaluated using the following factors:

1. Factor 1: Technical

a. SubFactor 1: Management Approach

b. SubFactor 2: Prior Experience

2. Factor 2: Price (Seed Project)

2.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable IAW Table 1: Factor 1, Technical Ratings, listed below. The Government must be assured that each Offeror has the ability to perform the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW). Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following SubFactors:

SubFactor 1: Management Approach SubFactor 2: Prior Experience

The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the Sub-Factors. Detailed instructions are included in Section L. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each Sub-Factor a rating as shown below. Offerors must receive an acceptable rating on each Sub-Factors 1 through 4 in order to be considered technically acceptable. A rating of unacceptable in one or more Sub-Factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation factor. The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability:

Table 1: Factor 1, Technical Ratings Technical Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.1.1 SUB-FACTOR 1: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Measures of Merit: This Sub-Factor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following:

1. A Quality Control (CQC) Plan IAW Section 6, Statement of Work (SOW), to include, at a minimum, the following components to cover all activities for contractor onsite work and subcontractors.

a. Complete Quality Control (QC) organization chart, IAW Section 6, SOW, with a supporting narrative identifying precise lines of authority and responsibilities, including names, qualifications, and duties of each person assigned to a QC function, including project liaison personnel proficient in English speaking and writing.

b. Procedures for tracking deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action and procedures for verifying identified deficiencies have been corrected IAW Section 6 of the SOW

2.1.2 SUBFACTOR 2: PRIOR EXPERIENCE

Measures of Merit: This SubFactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following:

The Offeror submits prior experience information on a minimum of three relevant contracts/jobs performed. Provides relevant experience in sufficient detail to show completed efforts within the past five (5) years. These projects shall only be those which the Offeror performed as the prime contractor. In addition, the Offeror’s combined submission shall at a minimum encompass each of the following

1. At least one (1) project that is in which the Offeror acted as the prime contractor overseeing a project for protective coatings work in a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract.

2. At least one (1) project with a contract value over $100,000.00.

3. At least one (1) example of performing concurrent projects as a prime contractor.

2.2 FACTOR 2: PRICE

The Government will evaluate the total price proposed for the sample project to determine whether prices are complete, balanced, and reasonable for the work to be performed IAW data submitted per Section L, paragraph 5.0, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis. Any other data provided by the Offeror with the price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated. As task orders will be issued on a fixed price basis, the Government does not intend to perform a cost realism analysis.

Pricing will be evaluated by reviewing the seed task and taking the seed task value and adding it to the total bottom dollar value of the call sheet. This will allow the Government to review the total evaluated price of each proposal.

The Offeror’s price proposal for the sample project will not be assigned a rating, but will be evaluated for completeness, price reasonableness, and balance as follows:

2.2.1 COMPLETENESS

Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L, paragraph 5.0 and all subparagraphs of 5.0. Prices are considered complete when the Offeror provides the basis for pricing, necessary for the Government to understand what the prices represent and to enable the Government to determine if the prices are reasonable and balanced. In addition, the completed bid schedule (Attachment 09), and the Call Sheet Breakdown for Sample Project (Section J, Attachment 10) must be completed as directed in Section L, paragraph 5.2.4. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an Offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced, or incomplete.

Submission of an incomplete Pricing Volume as set forth in Section L, 5.1 will cause the Offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the RFP and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

Note: Incomplete proposed prices, either initially proposed or updated later as a result of discussions, if discussions are conducted, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement.

2.2.2 UNBALANCED PRICING

The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price (TEP), the price of one or more unit price rates are significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.2.3 PRICE REASONABLENESS

For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. In addition, price reasonableness will be used to assess the likelihood an Offeror would provide a competitive price on future task orders. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. The following are examples of the price analysis techniques that may be applied: comparing proposed prices to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE); comparing proposed prices to those proposed by other Offerors, and comparing proposed prices to historical labor rates proposed on recently awarded acquisitions.

Offerors who’s TEP is determined to be unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 may not be considered for award.

If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness, or if the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the PCO 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. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. An Offeror’s price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.