Attachment 12 Section M.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

FA9101-23-R-B007

Attachment 12

M-1.0. EVALUATION CRITERIA

M-1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value subjective trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW)

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3, the Air Force Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315, and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection

Procedures dated 20 August 2022. To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible IAW

FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Attachment 11, Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the

Government. The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposals representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance and Price. The trade-off will occur only between past performance and price, where past performance is significantly more important than price. The Government seeks to award to the offerors whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with evaluation criteria and basis for award. This may result in awards made to higher rated, higher priced Offerors, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher priced Offerors outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) and up to five (5) contracts. The Government reserves the right to award two (2) to five (5) contracts, or none, if the SSA determines it to be in the

Government’s best interest based on consideration of one or more of the following items: adequate competition, and the determination that the contracts awarded presents the best value to the Government in meeting the needs of this acquisition in accordance with the state evaluation criteria. All Offerors who are awarded a basic contract as a result of this Civil Engineering Building and Utilities Mechanical III

(CE BUMP III) solicitation will be awarded the post-award conference to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award. The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposals representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance and Price.

M-1.3. Award of Post-Award Conference

All Offerors who are awarded a basic contract as a result of this CE BUMP III solicitation will be awarded a post-award conference in the FFP amount of $4,500.00 to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award. The post-award conference price of $4,500.00 will be included in the total evaluated price assessment.

M-1.4. Award of Seed Project

Of the Offerors who are awarded a basic contract as a result of this CE BUMP III IDIQ solicitation, the

Offeror with the lowest total evaluated price (TEP) will be awarded the seed project.

M-1.5. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated.

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions without evaluating the proposal against the evaluation factors as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation. Further, the

Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing a volume (either hard copy or electronic) or other information required by the solicitation).

M-1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions (except clarifications may be conducted as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) later determines them to be necessary.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with Offerors, they will be in the form of

Evaluation Notices (ENs). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to ENs in the event they are issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the

ENs to the Offerors. If discussions are required, they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of the PCO’s judgment as set forth in FAR Subpart

15.306. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround within two business days in responding to the

PCO.

M-1.7. Competitive Range

If discussions are conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. If the

PCO determines that an offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, whether for purposes of efficiency or otherwise, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503, whereupon offerors may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR Subpart 15.505.

M-1.8. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)

FPRs will be requested when discussions have been concluded. Offerors are advised that unsupported

FPRs may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy. Any changes to or non-concurrence with 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 its proposal.

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. 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-1.9. Certification Gate

The Government will review the Offeror’s initial proposal for documentation certifying that the Offeror possesses the necessary bonding capacity as described in Attachment 11, Section L, Paragraph L-3.1.1.4.

Any proposal received that does not meet this condition will be returned to the Offeror without any further evaluation, and is considered ineligible for award.

M-1.10. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and past performance submission requirements, pricing submission requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and instructions contained in Attachment 11, Section L may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission or other information required by the solicitation). Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

M-2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

M-2.1 Evaluation Factors

M-2.1.1 The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor I: Past Performance

Factor II: Price

M-2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors. The relative importance of each factor is as follows: The Past

Performance factor is significantly more important than Price. Price will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and TEP and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value.

M-2.3. Past Performance Factor

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. Each Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment at the Past Performance factor level.

M-2.3.1 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s relevant and recent past performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by Offerors in the proposals. 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, PPQs, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), System for Award Management (SAM), Electronic Subcontract Reporting

System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee

Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

The Government reserves the right to evaluate no more than seven offers for award of between 2 (two) to

5 (five) contracts. Initially offerors will be ranked by TEP. The seven offers evaluated will be limited to the seven offerors with the lowest TEP. The Contracting Officer shall seek to evaluate the recency, relevancy, and performance quality in the past performance information on the seven lowest TEP offerors based on the aforementioned methods. If of the seven evaluated offers, the Government does not receive at least two offers with a “substantial confidence” past performance confidence assessment, the

Government will not limit its evaluation to the seven lowest TEP offers and will then evaluate all remaining offers received.

The evaluation process will commence with the offeror with the lowest TEP and will proceed with each subsequent lowest TEP offer. If all five of the lowest TEP offers all receive a “substantial confidence” past performance confidence assessment, then these offers will constitute the best value to the

Government and the evaluation process will end. The evaluation will end in this manner if, and only if, the first five lowest TEP offers all receive “substantial confidence” past performance confidence assessments.

The Government may award less than five contracts if in the Government’s best interest. Also, the

Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the best interest of the

Government.

M-2.3.1.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Past performance not determined to be recent will not be evaluated.

M-2.3.1.2 Relevancy Assessment. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving design-build and construction capabilities described in the SOW, that involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The following past performance relevancy criteria will be used during the evaluation:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope includes the tasks/functions described in the SOW.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the CE BUMP III. Relevant past performance projects will be at a minimum of $100,000.00 in total contract scope, any past performance projects submitted under $100,000.00 will be determined to be not relevant.

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the tasks/functions referenced in the CE

BUMP III SOW in terms of the breadth of disciplines required, contract type, and performance period.

A relevancy rating will be assigned to each reference by evaluating relevancy against the tasks/functions described in this section. A relevancy determination of the Offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and subcontractor(s). Efforts covering a broader range of these capabilities will be considered more relevant than those covering a narrower range. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will only be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will not consider experience of subordinate or affiliated offices of the Offeror, unless the Offeror clearly details the proposed meaningful involvement of the Offeror’s subordinate or affiliated offices in this requirement. Past performance examples from

Offerors submitted from previous joint ventures may not be considered as relevant as those where the

Offeror was wholly responsible for the cited work. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DOD Source Selection Guide, Table 4):

Table M-2.3.1.2-1: Relevancy Definitions

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-2.3.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed as it relates to the past performance factor. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The

Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table M-2.3.1.3-1: Quality Level Definitions

Quality Assessment Rating/Color Description

Exceptional (E)/Blue During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Very Good (VG)/Purple During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

Satisfactory (S)/Green During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Marginal (M)/Yellow During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory (U)/Red During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive

Customer oversight and involvement was required.

Not Applicable (N)/White Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

M-2.3.2 Ratings. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment for each Offeror of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited

Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in Table M-2.3.2-1 below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, joint venture partners, or subcontractors will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history, or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Table M-2.3.2-1: Performance Confidence Assessment Definitions

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.

M-2. 4. Price Factor

M-2.4.1. Price Evaluation

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of the Offeror’s price proposal for the Seed

Project and the post-award conference. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to the TEP. An Offeror’s

TEP will be determined by adding the prices of the post-award conference (CLIN 0001) and the seed project (CLIN 0002). Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, and (3)

TEP. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

M-2.4.1.1. Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the solicitation. Completeness is when the Offeror completes and submits all the requested pricing in accordance with Section L-3.3.

M-2.4.1.2. Reasonableness: The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

M-2.4.1.3. TEP: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s pricing for the Seed Project and the proposed price for the post-award conference. The Offeror’s TEP will be evaluated as provided in

Attachment 10, Price Proposal.

M-2.4.1.3.1 When applicable, the price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied IAW FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business

Concerns, to arrive at the TEP.