Attachment 10 - Final Section M Evaluation Criteria 14 Nov 2023.pdf

Attachment 10 - FA488724R0001 Section M

14 November 2023

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY

REMOVED FROM THE RESULTANT CONTRACT.

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the PAVING IDIQ contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against predetermined evaluation criteria to the Government's requirement defined herein.

M.1 GENERAL EVALUATION INFORMATION

M.1.1 Basis for Contract Award.

This is a competitive, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) with Technical Acceptability best value source selection, for WOSB companies that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at, https://acquisition.gov/. For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price. Technical and Past Performance when combined are approximately equal to price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. While the Government evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. In order to be considered for award, the Offeror must be determined responsible (as described in FAR 9.104), meet all solicitation requirements, terms, and conditions, be technically acceptable, be assessed a past performance confidence rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial”, and have a price that is complete, fair, reasonable, and balanced.

M.1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation.

M.2 COMMUNICATION WITH OFFERORS

M.2.1. Intent to Award Without Discussions The Government intends to award a contract as a result of this solicitation without discussions and as such, Offerors are advised to submit their best offer and with sufficient information in the format specified. Despite the intent to award without discussions the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined in the best interest of the Government and may do so in writing or orally. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer.

M.2.2. Competitive Range.

The Government reserves the right to limit, for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). If the contracting officer decides that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and a written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful

2 Nov 2023

Offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503.

M.2.3. Clerical Errors.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for revisions.

M.2.4. Opening Discussions.

If, during evaluations, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established and the Offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) 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 in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offer (for example: the relevance of past/present performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. If, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes their proposal such that the price is no longer fair and reasonable or sufficient to keep them among the most highly rated Offerors or other factor inputs change their ranking among other Offerors, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

M.2.5. Correction Potential of Proposal.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M.2.6. Final Proposal Revisions.

If discussions are conducted, FPRs will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, FPRs will not be required.

M.3. EVALUATION FACTORS

This evaluation will utilize the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Bonding Capacity Subfactor 2: Key Personnel Resumes Subfactor 3: Management Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

M.3.1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

The Technical Factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All Subfactors within Technical are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between the non-priced factors and price as previously indicated. Technical and Past Performance, when combined are approximately equal to price.

M.3.2. Factor 1 – Technical The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical proposal, based on the subfactors listed below, to determine if the Offeror’s technical proposal demonstrates a sound approach and a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the Paving IDIQ requirements and solicitation. All Subfactors within the Technical Factor are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an “Acceptable or Unacceptable” Basis, as defined in Table 3.2 below. All subfactors must receive an Acceptable rating for Factor 1, Technical to be deemed Acceptable. Any offer with an Unacceptable rating in one or more subfactors will be given an overall rating of Unacceptable for Factor 1 and will not be eligible for award. At a minimum, the Offeror shall provide sufficient information to meet the technical ratings.

TABLE 3.2. Technical Ratings – FACTOR 1

Rating Description ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.2.1. Technical Subfactor 1: Bonding Capacity:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s bonding capacity and assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in the Technical Ratings Table 3.2.1 below. Provide proof of bonding capacity in the form of a surety letter, which guarantees the Offeror is eligible to be bonded for a minimum of $3,000,000 for a single project and $7,000,000 aggregate. The document must include the surety company’s name, address, telephone number, and points of contact. The surety must be listed in the Department of Treasury Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies”. The project and aggregate bonding amounts shall not exceed the surety’s underwriting limit certified by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

TABLE 3.2.1 – Technical Ratings – SUBFACTOR 1 – BONDING

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets all of the following requirements of the solicitation:

1. Minimum bonding capacity of $3M project.

2. Minimum bonding capacity of $7M aggregate.

3. Bonding company certified on Department of Treasury Circular 570.

4. Bonding amounts do not exceed surety’s underwriting limit.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet one or more of the bonding requirements.

M.3.2.2. Technical Subfactor 2: Key Personnel Resumes:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Key Personnel Resumes for the key personnel that would occupy the positions of Program Manager, Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager listed in Table 3.2.2. below that would be utilized in performance under a resultant contract. The personnel qualifications listed are also included in the Statement of Work and will remain contractual requirements.

TABLE 3.2.2. – Technical Ratings – SUBFACTOR 2 – Key Personnel Resumes

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets all of the following requirements of the solicitation.

1. Key Personnel Resumes:

Resumes were provided for each of the positions listed below and met the established minimum qualifications.

Contractor’s Project Manager (CPM): The CPM has a minimum of 5 years previous experience as primary manager of a Government contract or general contracting firm engaged in similar multiple discipline commercial construction projects. In addition, the CPM must be experienced with managing multiple subcontractors.

Contractor’s Project Superintendent (CPS): The CPS has a minimum of 5 years previous experience as a project superintendent inspector, quality control manager, project manager, or construction manager of airfield and street paving projects.

Contractor’s Quality Control Manager/ Foreman (QCM): The QCM shall be someone other than the Project Manager or Superintendent. QCM shall have a minimum of 7 years’ experience as a superintendent, inspector, quality control manager, project manager, or construction manager for airfield and street construction projects.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet one or more of the key personnel qualifications.

M.3.2.3. Technical Subfactor 3, Management Plan:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management plan to assess the capability to appropriately manage and employ the necessary resources to execute the contract and all task orders and assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in the Technical Ratings Table 3.2.3.

below. To be determined acceptable, the management plan should have sufficient information that describes how the offeror intends to manage company operations to be able to successfully perform the full range of tasks required in the Statement of Work. From the information provided the Government will evaluate and assess whether or not the plan demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirement and the risk that the management plan poses to being able to perform successfully.

The areas of interest on behalf of the Government include but are not limited to mobilization, responsiveness, quality control, estimation capabilities and surge capacity in no particular order of importance.

TABLE 3.2.3. – Technical Risk Ratings – SUBFACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

M.3.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. 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, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

M.3.3.1. Adverse Past Performance:

Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror or joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. 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.

M.3.3.2. Joint Ventures & Teaming Partners:

Newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the acquisition and this performance occurred during the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the Offeror/Teaming Partner/Joint Venture member. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

M.3.3.3. The Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly identifies and meets the criteria of recency and relevancy, based on the following definitions:

M.3.3.3.1. Recency.

An evaluation of the present/past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

Recency is defined as active contract performance during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance as of five (5) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent.

Ongoing projects may be used as long as they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or Non- Federal Government equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage). 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 evaluate the Offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

A recency determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining recency for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror/Teaming Partner/Joint Venture member whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. If necessary, the information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the recency of past performance.

M.3.3.3.2. Relevancy.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely related the products provided/services performed under those contracts are to the Technical requirements and Price, including their relative order of importance, to this acquisition. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for Technical similarity and relative price magnitude (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

Specifically, relevant is defined as contracts of similar size, scope, and magnitude, involving the type of construction and work elements described in the solicitation and attached Paving IDIQ SOW and Specifications. Relevant past performance project work elements include projects involving construction of rigid airfield pavement, excavation, surface preparation grading, base course preparations, asphaltic concrete and asphalt overlays, joint sealing, doweling, airfield paint striping, and rubber removal. Relevant contracts include work performed concurrently on a military installation or Federal Government facility or utility system will be considered more relevant. Relevant Present/Past project(s) cost should be in the range of $75,000 - $6,000,000.

Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local Government and commercial) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the Paving IDIQ SOW.

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made utilizing this criteria and will apply to joint venture and teaming partner(s). 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. The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports or Present/Past Performance Information (PPPQ) forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance and will result in Offerors receiving a Past Performance Relevancy Rating, as defined in Table 3.3.3.2 below.

TABLE 3.3.3.2 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.

M.3.3.4 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to this acquisition, taking into consideration their relative order of importance, IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2), the Government will consider recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. This evaluation of the recent contracts will result in Offerors receiving an Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, as defined in Table 3.3.4. below.

TABLE 3.3.4 INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSEMENT RATINGS

Adjectival 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.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. Past performance with a greater degree of recency or relevancy will have a greater impact on the Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts.

M.3.3.4.1. Neutral Confidence Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. A strong record of recent and relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

M.3.4. Factor 3 – Price The evaluation of price is based on the Total Evaluated Price which is comprised of the sum of the projected RS Means Material and Labor Bare Cost and the total cost for Rubber Removal over the 5-year ordering period. The total evaluated price is strictly used for evaluation purposes only. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal (TEP) for completeness, balance, and fair and reasonableness. Only proposals determined to be complete, balanced, and fair and reasonable will be eligible for award.

M.3.4.1. Completeness.

The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the priced elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereafter.

M.3.4.2. Unbalanced Pricing.

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether proposed prices are unbalanced pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items, and option prices. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.3.4.3. Reasonableness.

IAW FAR 31.201-3 and 15.404-1, the Offeror’s TEP price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable. Pursuant to FAR 15.404-1, the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M.3.4.4. Price components The submitted price, comprised of two components, the proposed coefficient, and the price for rubber removal, submitted as a price per square yard, will be evaluated.

M.3.4.4.1. The “Coefficient” covering all items including all general conditions, profit, overhead, insurance, administrative/technical support and labor burden for the prime Contractor’s office staff and workforce will be evaluated as part of the total evaluated price. Bonds and taxes will be priced at the Task Order level and will not be part of the total evaluated price for purposes of this acquisition.

M.3.4.4.2. The Rubber Removal Cost will be evaluated as part of the total evaluated price, allowing only one cost rate to be submitted since it will be multiplied by the “Coefficient” as described above, and will be evaluated for completeness, balance, and reasonableness. Rubber removal will have the coefficient applied to it for the purposes of the total evaluated price and will be priced in the same manner for task orders.

M.4.0. EVALUATION STEPS

Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation process steps:

Step 1 – Proposal Adequacy: The Government will review proposals for completeness (adhering to all information/instructions). If an Offeror fails to comply with instructions in Section L - Instructions, Condition, and Notices to Offeror, the Offeror’s proposal may be deemed incomplete and will receive no further consideration and be eliminated from the competition. The Government will only evaluate proposals deemed complete.

Step 2 – Evaluate Factor 1, Technical: The Government will evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability. A rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned for each subfactor. All subfactors must be deemed “Acceptable” for Factor 1 to be deemed “Acceptable.” To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating for Factor 1. Only proposals determined “Acceptable” on Factor 1 will proceed to be evaluated for Factor 2, Past Performance. In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is deemed technically unacceptable for Factor 1, it will be eliminated, and past performance will not be evaluated. Thus, the proposal will be eliminated from the competition.

Step 3 – Evaluate Factor 2, Past Performance: The Government will evaluate all technically “Acceptable” Offeror’s past performance submissions and each offeror will be assigned an Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Only Offeror’s with a past performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Substantial Confidence” will move on to Step 4 to be evaluated under Factor 3, Price. No further consideration will be given for proposals that receive a rating below “Satisfactory.”

Step 4 – Evaluate Factor 3, Price: Proposals found technically acceptable and that have received a Substantial, Satisfactory or Unknown/Neutral Integrated Past Performance Rating will then be reviewed for completeness, balance, and fair and reasonable pricing IAW 15.404- 1(b)(2)(i), based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of the coefficient and rubber removal material and labor bare cost.

Although the Price Factor is considered less important than the combined non-cost factors, it will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

Step 5 – Grouping: All proposals eligible for evaluation after Step 4, will be placed into groups according to their Integrated Past Performance Rating (i.e., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, etc.) and ranked in order from least to highest Total Evaluated Price within their respective groups.

Step 6 – Best Value Decision: Based on the evaluation criteria, the Source Selection Evaluation Board will compile all evaluation information for each offeror and make an award recommendation to the appointed Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA will review all information provided to include the Source Selection Evaluation Board recommendation and will conduct an independent, integrated, comparative assessment to determine the offer that is most advantageous for the Government. The Government reserves the right to tradeoff between past performance and price and award the contract to an Offeror with a higher TEP that has been assigned a higher Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The offeror that is determined to have provided the most advantageous offer will be the apparent successful offeror.

Step 7 – Responsibility Determination and Contract Award: The apparent successful offeror will then be reviewed in order to make a determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR subpart

9.1 and if found responsible, will be determined eligible for contract award. The Government intends to award a single contract for this issued solicitation and will also issue a task order to fulfill the contract minimum guarantee.