Attachment 16 - Section M FA664825R0004.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Past Performance best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement Procedures, Guidance and Information Subpart 215.3, and Department of Air Force FAR Supplement (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors’ past and present performance history will be evaluated on a basis of past performance information being significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements and all such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices, technical and past performance records. The trade off will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the solicitation, passes technical acceptability, and also provides best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluations. Unbalanced, inaccurate, or incomplete price proposals may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Offers must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide a complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a solicitation requirement may result in an offer being determined Unacceptable.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Price Evaluation Factor. The Government will rank all offers by total evaluated price (TEP), which includes all line and sub-line items in the RFP. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. In addition, each offeror’s construction cost estimate breakdowns shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). The Government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis. If the Government elects to perform a price realism analysis, the Government reserves discretion over the method within which it performs its price realism analysis. If the Government elects to perform a price realism analysis and finds a proposal unrealistic, the Government may withhold award to that offeror.

B. Technical Evaluation Factor. The evaluation will begin with the lowest priced offeror being evaluated for technical acceptability on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. The technical evaluation will determine if the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. There will be four

(4) subfactors:

• Bid Bonds: were bid bonds included in the technical proposal package? Were they at least 20% of the proposed TEP?

• NIST Compliance: Is offeror in compliance with DFARS 252.204-7019 & 252.204-

7020 and have a current summary level score of 110 within the last 3 years?

• Schedule & Methodology: Does technical proposal include attachment 10 AF3046

Progress Schedule completed? Are all major milestones identified with reasonable timelines? Does methodology outline how offeror plans to meet project requirements?

• Organization and Key Personnel: Is offeror an AFCEC/CXF approved vendor or subcontracted with an approved vendor?

All technical evaluation subfactors have the same importance in the technical evaluation. Each subfactors is pass or fail. Offerors who pass all subfactors will receive a rating of “Acceptable,” failure of a single subfactor will result in an offeror being rated as “Unacceptable” and no longer be considered for award.

C. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information starting with the lowest-priced, fair and reasonable offeror who receives an “Acceptable” technical evaluation. If the lowest-priced offeror is assigned an Acceptable Confidence Rating, the source selection will conclude and that offeror will be deemed as representing the best value to the Government.

If the lowest-priced offeror is found Unacceptable, the source selection will continue on to an evaluation of the next price-ranked offeror. This process will continue until an Acceptable Confidence Rating is assigned to an offeror.

The evaluation will be based on (i) any past performance information obtained from the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and (ii) any data independently obtained by the Government. If a reference identified by the offeror does not submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), the Government will follow up with the referenced POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a referenced POC to provide the PPQ.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies of the offeror and/or subcontractors, key personnel, and subcontractors that will perform will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

(1) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last five (5) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation. Any information submitted which exceeds this five-year period will not be considered for evaluation.

(2) Relevant contract performance efforts shall involve similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that are required by this solicitation. In order to meet the Acceptable criterion, the contract performance must be rated Relevant. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

RELEVANT

(Acceptable)

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

(Unacceptable)

Present/past performance effort involved some, little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(3) Performance Quality Assessment: For each of the recent past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on the (i) Quality Assessment Criteria on delivered Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and (ii) the evaluation ratings in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), if available.

(4) Confidence Assessment Rating: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating of Acceptable - Satisfactory Confidence, or Unacceptable - Limited Confidence. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, evaluated offerors will receive a past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 2.

Table 2. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE

(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.

UNACCEPTABLE

(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.

Note: 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.

D. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in Section L.

Offerors 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 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. Clarifications and communications, as defined in FAR 15.306, do not constitute discussions

E. Award. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors.

The offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), an acceptable technical evaluation, and an Acceptable – Satisfactory Confidence past performance rating will be selected for award. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed to be in its best interest.