Attachment 10 - Sec M - 30 Jul 24.docx

SECTION M - EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award:

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure 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 DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable past performance, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph II below. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Complete blocks 14-20C of the RFP Section A, SF 1442 (SF 1442, SF 1449, etc.) In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K.

2. PART II - SOLICITATION FILL-IN SECTIONS B THRU K - Refer to Sections B through K of solicitation. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections B through K. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill-in" information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated , based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Statement of Need (SON) dated 27 Jun 24 and the AF 813 dated 23 May 24, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One: Statement of Work (SOW): The contractor’s SOW clearly details how work will be accomplished and meets/addresses the Governments SON, dated 27 Jun 2024. The Contractor shall provide a site plan and layout with notes and details, to depict the general scope of work. This document will include the proposed locations and areas needed for the anode beds, rectifiers, test stations and connecting/bonding lines. These items are to be prepared in a manner that is consistent with the environmental and technical limitations outlined within this SON and supporting technical documentation provided in the solicitation package.

Subfactor Two: Design: The contractor’s proposal provides a schematic design sufficient enough to address all major components of work, and with all information requested in the SON.

Subfactor Three: Schedule: The contractor’s proposal provides a progress schedule (design/construction) with a reasonable period of performance. This will be submitted on an AF 3064 (see sec J). The project schedule that the Contractor submits must include, at minimum, the Contract award date, period of performance of the contract, and description of each task in a project schedule.

Subfactor Four: Environmental Concerns: The Contractor shall assemble their proposal while adhering to the environmental concerns outlined in the AF 813.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

E. Volume III, Price Proposal

1. Cost Breakdown: Offerors will complete Attachment 5 – AF 3052 Cost Estimate Breakdown, and shall include, labor hours, material costs, equipment costs and all other costs associated with completion of the requirement. Lump sums will not be accepted. Failure to do so will result in VOL III being deemed Technically Unacceptable.

2. Price Proposal Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the completed documentation and adherence to the formatting therein, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Price Proposal factor.

D. Volume IV, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. 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.

d) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent two (2) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

· RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

E. Conclusion: All of the above factors must be rated as Acceptable for the Offeror’s proposal to be deemed technically acceptable and to be considered for award.