Attachment 18 SEC M Eval Factors for Award.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

M-001. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

A. This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure using price and non-price related factors to make award decision. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

B. The Government intends to make one contract award for the March ARB, CA SABER requirement without discussions. Proposals should be submitted initially on the most accurate and favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss and/or revise their proposals. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interests.

C. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notice(s) (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision(s) (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

D. 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

E. The Government will evaluate Price on all offerors. The Government will then evaluate the two (2) lowest priced offerors for Technical and Past Performance acceptability. Should the two (2) lowest priced offerors be rated acceptable in both Technical and Past Performance, Government evaluation of proposals will end with no other proposals evaluated. Should one (1) of the two (2) lowest priced offerors be rated unacceptable, the Government will evaluate the next lowest priced offeror for Technical and Past Performance acceptability. Once the Government determines two (2) low offeror’s acceptable, the Government will end its evaluation process with no other offerors being evaluated.

MI-002. EVALUATION FACTORS

A. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Any factor or subfactor determined unacceptable will render the entire Technical Proposal as unacceptable.

Factor 1: PRICE

Factor 2: TECHNICAL Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Bonding Capabilities

Attachment 18

FA466421R0002

Subfactor 3: Subcontract Management Subfactor 4: Proposal for Seed Project

Factor 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Proposals which do not address all evaluation factors and subfactors, or that are found to be unacceptable in any factor/subfactor, will be determined unacceptable proposals and will receive no further consideration for award.

Determination of relevancy lies solely with the Government.

B. Factor 1: Price

The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. See paragraphs (1) and (2) below.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph (3) below.

1. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

2. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Section B. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for lowest-priced offer based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), proposed in Attachment 16 Diagram II, for the base year requirement and all options. Evaluation will include review of the Offeror’s coefficients and their calculation into the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) table, Diagram II on Attachment 16, as outlined below. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be used for proposal evaluation purposes only, and will in no way obligate the Government or the Offeror to performance or payment in the amount of the TEP. The Offeror’s TEP will be calculated using weighted multipliers of the estimated work to be performed and the Offeror’s proposed coefficients, as provided in Attachment 16 Diagram I. A sample of the completed TEP chart is included in Attachments 16 and 17.

Factor 2: Technical Acceptability

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially without discussions or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion

Adjectival Rating Description

Attachment 18

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Program Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach to provide an effective and efficient management organization in accordance with requirement of the RFP and SOW to successfully manage the program. This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a management plan and organizational chart that identifies the key personnel by qualification, experience, and responsibilities. Key personnel include at a minimum the company Owner, Project Manager, Site Superintendent/Supervisor, and Drafting Technician.

Subfactor 2: Bonding Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s bonding capability in order to assess confidence in ability to successfully operate during performance of the contract. This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates their bonding capabilities to provide payment and performance bonds in the singular amount of $750,000 and combined project amount of $2 Million.

Subfactor 3: Subcontract Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror approach to providing effective and efficient Subcontract Management in accordance with the requirement of the solicitation including Section L. This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by clearly identifying the proposed level of contracting and in house work to be accomplished that meets or exceeds the requirement of FAR 52.219-14.

Subfactor 4: Proposal for Seed Project

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the procedures required to generate a task order proposal based on the Offeror’s Statement of Work (SOW) for the seed project/task order proposal and the Offeror’s associated cost breakout. The Government will review the overall completeness and accuracy of the Offeror’s Statement of Work (SOW) and cost breakout for the project. This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive and clear understanding of the requirement by providing the following:

a. The Offeror has included a SOW and cost breakout.

b. Offeror identifies all major components of the project in their written SOW, and reflects the corresponding cost for components in their cost breakout.

c. Offeror includes drawings indicated proposed location for the items to be installed.

d. Offeror’s use of the RS Means Unit Price Guide, UPG estimating software (as specified in the SABER SOW), or other equivalent estimating software.

Estimating software need not be e4Clicks estimating software for purposes of initial seed project pricing. Contractor receiving contract award will be required to use e4Clicks estimating software.

e. Offeror’s use of accurate estimating software line items, or acceptable alternatives.

f. Offeror’s use of accurate quantities for line items, or quantities which are acceptable for completion of the project.

g. Offeror’s ability to properly determine the proposal final cost by beginning

Attachment 18 with Bare Total Costs and applying the appropriate City Cost Index and applicable coefficient.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. This will be based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the products and /or services outlined in the solicitation. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “acceptable” to be eligible for award.

1. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

a. Acceptable – Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (see below)

b. Unacceptable – Based on the offeror’s past performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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 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. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

The evaluation of past performance will result in an overall assessment of acceptable or unacceptable.

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. 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 and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and other commercial sources.

1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, the effort must have been performed within past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation (see Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, Block 3). An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, the effort must have been performed within past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation (see Standard Form 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award, Block 3).

2. Relevancy Assessment:

Offers will be determined relevant based on the following:

Offeror provides past performance references for past contracts include task order or delivery order type contracts such as Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER), Task Order Contracts (TOC), general facility construction, maintenance, repair or alteration to include Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning, plumbing, electrical or other general construction work with the magnitude, duration and complexity as this requirement for Federal agencies, State or Local Government and/or

Attachment 18 commercial sources within the last three (3) years. Past performance of other team members will be evaluated only if the primary Contractor plans to submit their offer as a joint venture or other teaming arrangement or with significant contribution of subcontractors; validations may include information obtained from the customer or the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Only information determined to be recent and relevant past performance information will be considered in evaluation.

Other/Conformance to RFP Requirements

The Government will determine if the proposal conforms to the RFP requirements; only conforming proposals will be eligible for award.

Proposals will be determined to conform based on the following:

1. Offer is submitted by an SBA-Certified 8(a) firm based in the SBA servicing areas of the Orange County and Inland Empire District. Offeror provided a letter from the SBA Servicing Office showing proof of company’s 8(a) certification and/or approval of teaming arrangement if proposing as a joint venture/team

2. Offer must provide evidence of sufficient bid guarantee, as required in FAR 52.228-1, Bid Guarantee.

3. Offer provides a coefficient for each coefficient category.

4. Offeror completes the TEP chart using the proposed coefficients. Offeror has the financial capability and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.

Attachment 18