Attachment 08 Section M Evaluation factors for award.pdf

SECTION M

M-1 Evaluation factors for award

M-1.1. This competitive small business set-aside is a best value source selection that will be conducted using a Trade-Off process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3, and as further refined in this solicitation. The Government intends to award Hanscom Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract(s) to a target of up to three (3) Small Business Contractors. The Small Business Contractors receiving a MACC IDIQ contract will also receive an initial Pre-Construction Kick-off Task Order which will meet the minimum ordering quantity. Among the Small Business Contractors receiving a MACC IDIQ contract, the Government also intends to award the Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order. The Government reserves the right to evaluate and/or award more than or fewer than the target number of contracts based upon Source Selection Authority (SSA) determination that it is in the Government's best interest. The SSA’s best interest determination will be based on a consideration of one or more of the following items: available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of awardable proposals, consistent with Trade-off procedures outlined in this solicitation, following completion of an integrated assessment of the proposals received.

M-1.2. Technical proposals will be assessed and assigned one overall rating based off an average of individual subfactor ratings, with one of the following ratings: “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” as defined in Sections M-3.2.5. and M3.3.3. An individual rating will be assigned in the Technical factor for both the MACC IDIQ - Technical and the Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order - Technical. If the Government elects to award without discussions, only Offerors with a Technical Rating of “Outstanding” or “Good” for both the MACC IDIQ - Technical and Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order - Technical will be considered. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government.

M-1.3. Past performance evaluations will be rated as Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in Section M-3.4.3.

M-1.4. Bonding capacity evaluations will be rated as Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in Section M-3.5.1.

M-1.5. An Offeror’s proposed price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award. The Government will not award to Offerors with unreasonably high proposed prices or proposals that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the MACC IDIQ requirements or the Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order.

This includes both original submissions and, if required, Final Proposal Revisions.

M-1.6. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary and in the best interest of the Government. If, after initial evaluation of the offers, the Contracting Officer determines there are proposals that are awardable at a fair and reasonable price, a decision may be made to award IDIQ contracts without discussions. Accordingly, Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully compliant and clearly acceptable without additional information. A competitive range, if required, may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

M-1.7. To be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented. If an Offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that Offeror.

M-2

FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION

M-2.1. The Government intends to award without discussions and make an award based on initial proposals;

however, discussions or negotiations may be held if the SSA determines them to be in the best interest of the Government. If discussions or negotiations are determined necessary, the result would be a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will make a Competitive Range determination, evaluation notices may be issued to Offerors in the competitive range, responses will be requested from applicable Offerors, and discussions will be opened. Formal responses to evaluation notices (if applicable), discussion items, and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the award decision. Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to price, technical, and all terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the Offeror and the Government at the conclusion of discussions, if held.

M-2.2. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2.3. If, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes their proposal such that the price is no longer fair and reasonable or other factor inputs change their evaluation results, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

M-3

EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

M-3.1. Proposals will be evaluated using five (5) evaluation factors as follows:

• Factor 1: MACC IDIQ - Technical

• Factor 2: Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order - Technical

• Factor 3: Past Performance

• Factor 4: Bonding Capacity

• Factor 5: Price

M-3.1.2. Relative Order of Importance: Factors 1 and 2 will be rated as the most important factors with equal weighting. Of the remaining factors, Factor 3, Past Performance, is more important than Factor 4, Bonding Capacity. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price, however price will contribute to the award decision.

M-3.1.3. Factors 1 and 2 Technical Evaluation Approach: 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 solicitation for both Factor 1, MACC IDIQ - Technical and Factor 2, Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order - Technical. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) based on the evaluation criteria.

M-3.1.4. Factor 3 Past Performance: The Government will perform a Past Performance Confidence Assessment for each Offeror per DoD Source Selection Procedures. The assessment will consider the quality of recent, relevant efforts provided by the Offeror, as well as, efforts, if any, found by the Government independently.

M-3.1.5. Factor 4 Bonding Capacity: The Government will perform a review of bonding capacity and evaluations will be rated as Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in Section M-3.5.1.

M-3.1.6. Factor 5 Price: The Government will conduct a Price analysis to determine price reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed price.

M-3.1.7. Final Selection: The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The SSA will make an integrated assessment of the evaluation results to determine which proposal(s) is (are) most advantageous to the Government.

M-3.1.7.1. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) later determines them to be necessary and in the best interest of the Government. If the SSA 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 SSA 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. If the Government does conduct discussions, these will be in writing.

M-3.1.7.2. The Contracting Officer will award MACC IDIQ contract(s) and Pre-Construction Kick-off Task Order(s) to responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal, as determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, all factors considered.

In addition, the Contracting Officer will award one (1) Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order to one

(1) of the MACC IDIQ contract holders that offers the best overall value to the Government, as determined by the SSA, all factors considered.

M-3.1.7.3. The Government will award MACC IDIQ contract(s) resulting from this solicitation to the firm(s) selected in accordance with the above procedures. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

M-3.2 FACTOR 1: MACC IDIQ - TECHNICAL

M-3.2.1. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an adequate understanding of the nature and scope of work required in the MACC IDIQ SOW and Specifications. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. This subfactor will be assigned a rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the MACC IDIQ requirements and satisfactorily addresses the evaluation criteria identified below.

a. Proposed approach includes sufficient levels of detail and specificity that demonstrate an adequate understanding of the MACC IDIQ requirements.

M-3.2.2. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach for accomplishing the work described in the MACC IDIQ requirements. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the MACC IDIQ requirements described in the solicitation and demonstrate that their management approach can accomplish those requirements. This subfactor will be assigned a rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable”. The Offeror’s MACC IDIQ Management Approach will be evaluated based on the following:

b. Proposed Management Approach to resourcing, organizing, and communication are consistent with MACC IDIQ requirements, to include managing multiple task orders simultaneously.

M-3.2.3. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed narrative description with an organizational chart for accomplishing the work described in the MACC IDIQ requirements. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the MACC IDIQ requirements described in the solicitation and demonstrate that their narrative description with organizational chart can accomplish those requirements. This subfactor will be assigned a rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable”. The Offeror’s MACC IDIQ narrative description with an organizational chart will be evaluated based on the following:

c. Proposed narrative description with an organizational chart are logical, free of contradictory/conflicting information, and identify all entities for which experience is being claimed under Factor 1.

M-3.2.4. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed resumes for Key Personnel for accomplishing the work described in the MACC IDIQ requirements. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the MACC IDIQ requirements described in the solicitation and demonstrate that their Key Personnel can accomplish those requirements. This subfactor will be assigned a rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable”. The Offeror’s MACC IDIQ resumes of Key Personnel will be evaluated based on the following:

d. The Offeror’s Key Personnel meet the minimum experience requirements listed in the MACC IDIQ solicitation Statement of Work (SOW) paragraph 1.4 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL.

M-3.2.5. Technical ratings and definitions as follow:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

A Strength is defined as 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.

A Deficiency is defined as 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.

M-3.3 FACTOR 2: BUILDING 1106 CONFERENCE CENTER HVAC TASK ORDER - TECHNICAL

M-3.3.1. Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required in the MACC IDIQ Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order. Each subfactor below in paragraph M-3.3.2. will be assigned a rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order requirements and satisfactorily addresses the evaluation criteria identified below.

M-3.3.2. The subfactors listed below as a., b., and c., will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing the work described in the Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order requirements.

To receive an overall rating, Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the Task Order requirements described in the solicitation and demonstrate that their approach can successfully accomplish those requirements. The Offeror’s approach will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness based on the following:

a. Proposed approach to meet Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC requirements demonstrates a detailed understanding of the elements and trades necessary to successfully complete the project within the stated timeframe.

b. Proposed schedule incorporates the necessary elements of the project and demonstrates a logical workflow.

c. Proposed approach demonstrates an effective quality control process to ensure minimal issues/rework.

M-3.3.3. Technical ratings and definitions as follow:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

M-3.4 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

M-3.4.1. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess Offeror’s recent and relevant present and past work record to determine confidence in each Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the MACC IDIQ requirements, as proposed. For purposes of this evaluation, the “Offeror” includes any joint ventures, and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime Contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost and schedule.

M-3.4.1.1. A recency determination will be made for each contract reference provided. Recency is defined as active contract performance during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. If a contract reference is determined recent (had some or all active performance in the five (5) years preceding the solicitation issuance date) and had active performance prior to the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, the Government may only evaluate the Offeror’s performance record that occurred during the recency period.

M-3.4.1.2. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s Present and Past Performance occurring during the recency window (five (5) years preceding the solicitation issuance date), will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture, or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assigned for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that Offeror is proposing. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Scope of effort is defined as that documented in the Hanscom MACC ID/IQ SOW. The following relevancy definitions apply:

M-3.4.1.3. For each recent and relevant contract evaluated, the Government will also evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s performance. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of its performance or relevance.

RATING DEFINITION

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 efforts and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of efforts and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved little to none of the scope and magnitude of efforts and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-3.4.2. The Government evaluation team, known as the Past Performance Evaluation Team, will conduct a review and evaluation of performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed Hanscom MACC IDIQ requirements. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by Offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through one or more of the following: 1) the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); 2) similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) customer questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; 4) DCMA channels; 5) interviews with program managers and contracting officers; and 6) other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

M-3.4.3. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will consider Offeror’s past performance as an entire team (where primes in partnerships) or on an individual basis for Contractors proposing on their own. Each Offeror will receive a single integrated performance confidence assessment. This integration may include the recent and relevant present/past performance of the Prime Contractor, and joint ventures, and/or teaming partners. An Offeror’s overall confidence assessment will be impacted by past performance findings to include the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity of the Offeror’s team. More recent performance or more relevant past performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the MACC IDIQ, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Contractor performance and the resulting confidence level for work under this requirement. Each Offeror will receive one (1) overall performance confidence rating as follows:

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.

M-3.4.4. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

When the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any actual 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), 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-3.4.5. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. However, in making a comparative tradeoff decision for award, the SSA may consider a “Neutral Confidence” rating to be less advantageous to the Government than other confidence ratings.

M-3.4.6 In the course of evaluating Offerors’ proposals, the SSEB may contact references submitted by the Offerors. The SSEB may also check past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offerors. All the information gathered will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s overall past performance. At no time during this process, or during the debriefing, or after award, will the names of individuals providing reference information about an Offeror's past performance be revealed to the Offerors or to any other party.

M-3.5 FACTOR 4: BONDING CAPACITY

M-3.5.1. The Government Evaluation Team will consider Offeror’s Bonding Capacity. Each Offeror will receive one (1) overall performance confidence rating as follows:

RATING Bonding Capacity: Single and Aggregate

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

$10M Single / $20M and greater Aggregate

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE

$6M - $9.9M Single / $15M - $19.9M Aggregate

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE

$3M - $5.9M Single / $10M - $14.9M Aggregate

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

$1M - $2.9M Single / $6M - $9.9M Aggregate

NO CONFIDENCE

$0K - $900K Single / $2M - $5.9M Aggregate

M-3.6 FACTOR 5: PRICE

M-3.6.1. The contract will be Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP). The Offeror’s price proposal for the MACC IDIQ will be evaluated at the total combined price proposed for the MACC IDIQ Pre-Construction Task Order plus the MACC IDIQ Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order. The total evaluated price consists of the price proposed in the Attachment 10, Section J, MACC IDIQ –Task Order 01 and 02 Price Schedule, Pre-Construction Kick-off Task Order LINE 1 and Building 1106 Conference Center HVAC Task Order LINE 2 of the solicitation.

M-3.6.2. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Comparison of the proposed prices among Offerors in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include, but not limited to, the following: comparison of previously proposed costs/prices and previous Government and commercial contract costs/prices with current proposed costs/prices for the same or similar service/items;

comparison with competitive market costs/prices of similar indexes; GSA Schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes; or comparison of proposed costs/prices with the Independent Government estimate.