Attachment 15 SECTION M Evaluation of Offerors.docx

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2. DISCUSSIONS. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the (each) offerors initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and a technical standpoint. Although the Government intends to award without discussion, it 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. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror 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 at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the offeror's proposal that may change the rating of the offeror's proposal.

3. CLARIFICATIONS. In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, relevance of past performance information). Clarifications 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 proposal revision.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Price Factor from Seed Project (Located within Vol IV) Factor 2: Technical Factor Subfactor 1: Program Management (Located within Vol II) Subfactor 2: Seed Project (Located within Vol IV) Factor 3: Past Performance Factor (Located within Vol III)

Award will be made to one or more of the offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

4.1. Relative Importance of Factors. For this solicitation, the Past Performance Factor, is the most important followed by Technical, which includes Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2, and then Price. Technical Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance. Additionally, and in accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

5. FACTOR 1: PRICE FACTOR. The offeror's price proposal, as described in Section L, will be evaluated as follows.

5.1. Price Reasonableness. Offeror's price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. Additionally, the offeror's price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes. The offeror's price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.2. The price proposal will be evaluated using the Seed Project Price Proposal.

5.3. Estimated volume is based on a maximum contract value of $47.5M over 5 years. Offeror should not consider this figure as any indication of proposed contract usage during this contract period.

5.4. Balance. Offeror's price proposal(s) will be reviewed for balance among all Total Evaluated Price Worksheet Line Items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total cost/price, the cost/price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Cost/Price. Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(8), the Government may determine a proposal unacceptable if the costs/prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.5. Total Evaluated Price. The Seed Project will be evaluated for price.

6. FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL FACTOR. Each offeror's written technical proposal will be evaluated, based on the subfactors identified in paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the solicitation and General Requirements and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror's proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

6.1. Technical Risk. For each subfactor, address Technical Risk associated with those aspects of your proposed technical approach you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: SOW annexes, appendices, workload, or referenced publications), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic "work-around" or risk mitigations for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level.

6.2. Subfactor 1 - Program Management: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's management approach as it relates to key personnel capabilities and functions, subcontract management plan, and bonding capacity. The proposal shall be evaluated and rated to determine if the Offeror's proposal demonstrates a sound approach to executing and concurrently managing task orders under the resulting contract.

6.2.1. Key Personnel Capabilities and Functions. The Offeror's proposal shall demonstrate the following:

6.2.1.1. A logical organizational and management structure;

6.2.1.2. Sufficient key personnel that meet the minimum standards (education and/or experience) for those positions in accordance with the SABER SOW and all subparagraphs;

6.2.1.3. An effective approach to ensure Project Manager and Quality Control Manager are not over saturated with the management and/or responsibilities associated with assigned active projects.

6.2.1.4. An effective approach to ensure quality control and safety management are properly applied to each active project.

6.2.2. Subcontract Management Plan. The Offeror's proposal shall communicate a plan that demonstrates the following:

6.2.2.1. An effective approach to ensure the successful use and management of subcontractors;

6.2.2.2. A thorough understanding of all trades/disciplines required under the resulting contract; the availability of an appropriate labor force; and the determination of in-house/organic versus subcontractor execution per trade/discipline;

6.2.2.3. An effective approach to provide sustained contract compliance during surges in workload and/or in number of concurrent active task orders.

6.2.3. Bonding Capacity. The Offeror's proposal shall demonstrate the following:

6.2.3.1. Evidence that the offeror is able to obtain the maximum single award/task order performance and payment bonding capacity of $1M and a minimum aggregate bonding capacity of $5M, backed by a bonding surety with a certified Department of Treasury Surety, as listed in FAR 28.202. The document(s) shall include the surety company's name, address, phone number, and points of contact.

6.2.4. Understanding of local market pricing and conditions;

6.2.5. An understanding of contract requirements as it relates to the expected volume of work.

6.3. Subfactor 2 – Seed Project: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's technical capability. The proposal shall be evaluated and rated to determine if the Offeror's proposal demonstrates a sound approach to executing a seed project. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the following:

6.3.1. A sound and logical approach to completing the seed project.

6.3.2. A thorough understanding of the major cost elements (e.g., labor, material, etc.), major sub-cost elements (e.g., plumber, pipe fitter, electrician, HVAC units), and quantities (e.g., hours, number of items).

6.3.3. Consistency between the approach and proposed cost elements.

6.4. Acceptable/Unacceptable Technical Rating. Each Technical subfactor will receive an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1 -- Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method excerpted below. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an acceptable rating in every technical subfactor.

7. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

7.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and 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 recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and Cost /Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Section M, paragraph 4.1. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use Past performance information provided by the offeror, as solicited; Past performance information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition; and Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials and any other source deemed reasonable by the Contracting Officer.

7.1.1. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been completed during the past three (3) years from the issuance month of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

7.1.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the provided services were performed under those contracts relate to the scope and complexity of this effort, see Section L, para. 6.1.1 and SABER SOW (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to contract performance consisting of information demonstrating construction and design experience with contracts that have multiple projects/task orders containing work elements such as demolition, facility renovation, alteration and repair, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and teaming partners. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime or teaming partner. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The relevancy of the projects will be assessed based on the past performance rating criteria described in the table following Section M, paragraph 7.1.2.1.

7.1.2.1. Work Elements

Facility Construction Subgroup Division 02 - Existing Conditions Division 03 - Concrete Division 04 - Masonry Division 05 - Metals Division 06 - Wood, Plastics, and Composites Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection Division 08 - Openings Division 09 - Finishes Division 10 - Specialties Division 11 - Equipment Division 12 - Furnishings Division 13 - Special Construction Division 14 - Conveying Equipment

Facility Services Subgroup:

Division 21 - Fire Suppression Division 22 - Plumbing Division 23 - Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Division 25 - Integrated Automation Division 26 - Electrical Division 27 - Communications Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security

Site and Infrastructure Subgroup:

Division 31 - Earthwork Division 32 - Exterior Improvements Division 33 - Utilities Division 34 - Transportation Division 35 - Waterway and Marine Construction

Process Equipment Subgroup:

Division 40 - Process Interconnections Division 41 - Material Processing and Handling Equipment Division 42 - Process Heating, Cooling, and Drying Equipment Division 43 - Process Gas and Liquid Handling, Purification and Storage Equipment Division 44 - Pollution and Waste Control Equipment Division 45 - Industry-Specific Manufacturing Equipment Division 46 - Water and Wastewater Equipment Division 48 - Electrical Power Generation

*Note: Minimum number of Bold Subgroups need not be present on every project submitted, but all Bold Subgroups must be represented among the 5 projects submitted.

All projects must be performed in support of a Department of Defense (DoD) agency and independently corroborated by the Government evaluation team through CPARS and the Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project. The Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project must still be a DoD employee and have an active DoD email address.

At least three (3) projects performed in support of a Department of Defense (DoD) agency and independently corroborated by the Government evaluation team through CPARS and the Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project. The Government program manager (or equivalent) that presided over the project must still be a DoD employee and have an active DoD email address.

paragraph 7.1.2.1; and demonstrates a minimum of 3 projects/task orders done simultaneously with costs totaling a minimum of $300K.

*Note: The Government shall make every reasonable effort to solicit past performance information from the Offeror’s past performance point of contact (POC). Under no circumstances shall the Government delay contract award if the Offeror provided past performance POC does not respond to the Government’s inquiries.

7.1.3. Quality of Performance. An assessment to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be provided.

7.1.4. The Past Performance evaluation will result in an overall performance confidence assessment as defined below. This performance confidence assessment represents the Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated past performance. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

7.1.5. Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality of the performance of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. 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.

7.1.6. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

7.1.7. If a Teaming Agreement is submitted as part of the proposal as outlined in Section L, paragraph 6.1.2, each teaming offeror's past performance will be evaluated separately using the same evaluation methods described above. The Prime Contractor's past performance will be weighted slightly more than equal based on their overall responsibility for contract management. The separate ratings of each party in the Teaming Agreement will be combined to determine an aggregate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method.

8. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONEVALUATION PROCESS.

10.

11. The first 6 offerors, who have the lowest reasonably and realistically priced evaluated technically acceptable offer and are judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, and are determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, represent the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. If the seed project is awarded as a task order on this acquisition, it will be awarded to the contractor who, of the selected awardees, proposed the lowest price on the project. The Government is not obligated to award the seed project at any time.

12. If the first 6 proposals with the lowest reasonable and realistic price are not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest reasonably and realistically priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Government reserves the right to unilaterally determine how many contracts will be awarded in this range. All offerors receiving contract awards must be determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104. If no offerors are determined to have “Substantial Confidence”, then all offerors will be evaluated.

13.

14.

15. The Government shall evaluate offers to identify the best value to the government for award according to the below steps. The specific steps for evaluations/tradeoff are as follow:

15.1. Factors: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors.

15.2. Order of Importance: In this Performance Price Tradeoff process, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between past performance and price. For all technically acceptable proposals, Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Price.

15.3. Evaluation/Tradeoff Methodology: The Government shall evaluate offers to identify the best value to the government for award according to the below steps. The specific steps for evaluations/tradeoff are as follow:

15.4.

15.5. Step 1: The Government shall order all proposals from lowest to highest price.

15.6. Step 2: Starting with the lowest priced proposal, the Government shall review Volume I for completeness. The Contracting Officer may conduct clarifications to address the completeness of Volume I deliverables. It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify the executed contract documentation and supporting documentation meet the requirements of Sections L & M of this solicitation.

15.7.

15.8.

15.9. Step 3

15.10. : Evaluate Technical – If the proposal

15.11. is determined to be complete in Step 2, the proposal shall be evaluated for technical acceptability . In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is deemed technically unacceptable, it will be eliminated, and past performance will not be evaluated. Thus, the proposal will be eliminated from competition.

15.12. Step 4: Evaluate Past Performance – If the proposal is found technically acceptable in Step 3, Past Performance will be evaluated and assigned an "Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment" rating. Only offerors rated “Substantial Confidence” on the “Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment" will then be evaluated for price.

15.13. Step 5: Evaluate Price – If the proposal is found technically acceptable (Step 3) and received a “Substantial Confidence” Past Performance Rating (Step 4), the proposal shall be evaluated for fair and reasonable pricing IAW 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), on the seed project based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP is the aggregate dollar amount for the seed project. If the proposed price is deemed fair and reasonable the proposal will be deemed eligible for further evaluation. Proposals not determined fair and reasonable will not be evaluated further.

15.14. Step 6: The Government shall repeat steps 2 through 5 for the next lowest priced proposal until the first 6 offerors that 1) submit a complete proposal, 2) are technically acceptable, 3) were assessed a “Substantial Confidence” rating, and 4) were determined to be fair and reasonable are identified. The first 6 offerors that satisfy these criteria represent the best value to the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. If fewer than 6 offerors satisfy these criteria, the Government reserves the right to award less than 6 contracts. If no offerors are determined to have “Substantial Confidence”, then all offerors that are technically acceptable, have “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Unknown/Neutral Confidence”, and are determined to have fair and reasonable pricing shall be considered for award.

15.15. Step 7: Source Selection Authority's Decision for IDIQ Contracts – Once best value offerors are determined, the offerors are eligible for award. The Government may award up to six (6) contracts as a result of this solicitation.

15.16. Example Scenarios.

15.16.1. Scenario 1: The Government receives 10 proposals. The first 6 lowest priced offerors 1) submit a complete proposal, 2) were determined to be technically acceptable, 3) are assessed a “Substantial Confidence” rating, and 4) are determined to be fair and reasonable. The evaluation process stops and the Government considers these 6 offerors for award. The Government DOES NOT evaluate any proposals beyond the first 6 offerors that satisfy the criteria.

15.16.2. Scenario 2: The Government receives 10 proposals. After ordering all proposals from lowest to highest price, only 2 of the offerors 1) submitted a complete proposal, 2) were determined to be technically acceptable, 3) were assessed a “Substantial Confidence” rating, and 4) were determined to be fair and reasonable. The Government considers these 2 offerors for award.

15.16.3. Scenario 3: The Government receives 5 proposals. None of the offerors were assessed a “Substantial Confidence” rating. 3 offerors were assessed a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating and 2 offerors were assessed an “Unknown/Neutral Confidence” rating. All 5 offerors 1) submitted a complete proposal, 2) were determined to be technically acceptable, and 3) were determined to be fair and reasonable. The Government will consider all 5 offerors for award.

15.17. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information, in the format specified by Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors.

15.18. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than “Satisfactory Confidence” rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. 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 proposal revision.

15.19. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

15.20. Pursuant to MP5316.504, the Government’s actual obligation amount shall be $500 to compensate all awardees for attending the orientation seminars at Altus AFB, Oklahoma.