Attachment 10 Section M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD Page 1

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

.1 The evaluation criteria to be used by the Contract Officer for the selection of a contractor to perform the work specified as defined below. The criteria are divided into technical and price categories which consist of subsections corresponding to those in Section L, Attachment 9, with the article entitled “L.2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - SOURCE SELECTION

PROCEDURES” and the article entitled “L.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING THE PRICE PROPOSAL” . All evaluation factors, other than price, are considered significantly more important than price. However, as the difference, in technical merit, between the proposals becomes less significant the relative importance of the price will increase.

Basis for Award

The AOC will make a best value tradeoff contract award decision in accordance with AOC Order 34-1, Section 9.1.2.(a). The Government will conduct a competitive source selection. The objective of the source selection is to select the proposal(s) that best meet the requirements of the solicitation and to obtain the best value for the AOC. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The Government intends to award around four (4) IDIQ contracts to the responsible Offerors whose proposals are the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. There will be two (2) award tracks: unrestricted and small business. Consequently, the procurement schedule and award decisions on one track will not affect the other track. The Government will not award multiple contracts to an offeror that has a significant team role with another offeror, or an offeror with a significant role on one of AOC’s existing Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, excluding the current Construction Management IDIQ. The Government intends to award around two (2) IDIQ contracts under each track. Within each track, the source selections will be conducted as separate and distinct evaluations. The Government intends to make awards without discussions. In an effort to streamline the proposal evaluation process the Government reserves the right to suspend the evaluation of a proposal if, during evaluation, any evaluation factor is rated unacceptable. However, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to enter discussions, the Government reserves the right to revisit those proposals that were previously suspended prior to establishing the competitive range. If a competitive range is established the range will be based on the adjectival rating of evaluation factor 1, Corporate Experience and Expertise.

Evaluation Factors: Factors 1 through 4 are listed in descending order of importance. The Government award decision is based on Factors 1 through 5. Factors 1 through 4, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 Price. The Government will assemble a technical evaluation panel (TEP) for the assignment of a technical rating of outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable for each proposal based solely on the merits of the technical proposal. There will be no consideration of pricing data during the technical evaluation.

Factors 1 through 4, adjectival rating system is as follows:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD Page 2

Table 1 Adjectival Rating System Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding The proposal provides a very clear, comprehensive and detailed response which meets all requirements and may include significant strengths with no deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

Good The proposal provides a sound response which meets all requirements and may include strengths with no deficiencies and few weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Acceptable The proposal provides a response which is capable of meeting all requirements but may include both strengths and weaknesses with no deficiencies Strengths are not outweighed by the weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate as the proposal demonstrates a general understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

Marginal The proposal provides a response which does not meet all requirements and may include strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies. Strengths are outweighed by the weaknesses and/or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in unsatisfactory performance.

Unacceptable The proposal provides a response that does not meet all requirements and may include significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies which far outweigh any strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and will result in unsatisfactory performance.

The rating guidelines definitions for Factors 1 through 4 are listed as follows:

Table 2 Strengths/Weaknesses/Deficiencies Rating Definition Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength Any aspect of a proposal which meets or exceeds a requirement and increases the probability of successful performance of the contract

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

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

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

.2 TECHNICAL CRITERIA. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the technical criteria listed below to determine whether it is responsive to the requirements of the RFP and are therefore acceptable.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD Page 3

.1 Evaluation Factors. Evaluation Factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

.1 Factor 1: Corporate Experience and Expertise

The Offeror’s experience will be evaluated to determine the extent of its experience and qualifications in managing and providing CM Services on contracts and/or task orders similar in scope, size and complexity during the last five years. Additional consideration will be given to Offerors whose experience as a prime contractor is most extensive on contracts and/or task orders providing the same services (e.g., Construction Management services and Inspection Services) specified in this requirement.

Similar Scope, Size and Complexity: The selected offerors shall demonstrate the capacity to accomplish at least four (4) individual contracts and/or task orders of a combined minimum value of $500,000 simultaneously.

.2 Factor 2: Management Approach

The Offeror’s management plan will be evaluated to determine whether it provides an executive summary clearly defining key management functions and authorities, whether the proposed organizational structure ensures adequate management of all work. The plan must also address whether it adequately details the use of subcontractors, or teaming partners, and its capability to supply personnel upon award. The Government will evaluate the strength of the organization, structure, and staffing to execute the entire scope of work. Additional consideration will be given to offeror’s whose management plan demonstrates innovative management techniques appropriate for statement of work requirements, willingness to train/develop personnel that are unfamiliar with the Government operations, and/or demonstrates a willingness to mitigate the loss of productivity due to personnel shortages.

.3 Factor3: Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the Offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed the experience required by this solicitation (see Section C). The resumes of your Key Personnel will be evaluated to determine the level of their qualifications and ability to perform the duties required by this solicitation. Each key personnel should indicate the minimum qualifications of Section B to be considered acceptable.

Additional consideration will be given to the Offeror whose proposed personnel have the most relevant education, training, and skills. The resume will also be evaluated to determine the extent of successful participation in similar projects within the past five years, taking into consideration degree of client satisfaction for each project. Additional consideration will be given to Offerors whose key personnel relevant experience are extensive and highly successful.

.4 Factor 4: Past Performance

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD Page 4

The Government reserves the right to use any source of information available on the Offeror’s past performance to either evaluate past performance or verify information provided by the Offeror. The Offeror shall provide information that demonstrates the Offeror’s past performance. The enclosed “AOC PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE” shall be provided to each of the companies/agencies submitted by the offeror in response to Evaluation Factor 2. The questionnaire(s) must be emailed from the client to Darwin Thomas and Mike Chiodi by the date and time established for receipt of offers in order to be considered in the evaluation process.

A neutral rating will be applied for those projects/contracts for which a questionnaire is not received or past performance information is not available.

The Offeror shall identify four (4) contracts and/or task orders with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance. Recent is defined as within the last five years. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude of the work described in this Statement of Work. The offeror may submit no more than four recent and relevant CPARS records for projects with similar scope, size, and complexity to this solicitation.

.3 FACTOR 5: PRICE CRITERIA. Price criterion measures not only actual dollars but also analyzes the realism and reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed price and its position in the range of all prices. The price proposals will be evaluated as follows:

.1 Completeness: For completeness, offerors must provide unit prices for all listed items. Incomplete proposals (without required unit prices) may render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

.2 Reasonableness: The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

.3 Realism: Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. Proposed pricing will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance.

.4 Balance: Offeror’s proposals will be reviewed for balance. An offeror’s proposal will be determined balanced if there is an absence of unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced.

END OF SECTION M