Attachment 2 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Attachment 2; Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available on the Government’s acquisition regulation site, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

The Best Value technique chosen for this acquisition is a Past Performance Tradeoff. The

Government intends to select the best overall offer, based upon an assessment of Past

Performance, Technical Capability, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 sub-factors to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost 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.

1.2. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions.

Therefore, offerors should provide their best proposal to the Government in their initial offering. However, the Government reserves the right to enter into clarifications at any time after receipt of proposals in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the offeror’s proposal that may change the rating of the offeror’s proposal.

1.3. The Government intends to award one Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: The Government intends to make award to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Past Performance | Factor 2: Technical Capability | Factor 3: Price

2.2. Relative Importance of Factors: The Past Performance factor is more important than the

Technical Capability factor. Technical capability is approximately equal to cost or price.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Past Performance and technical Capability are

Significantly more important than cost or price combined.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

3.1. 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.

For offerors in a teaming arrangement where two or more companies form a partnership or “joint venture”, past performance information will be accepted from either entity.

However, as stated in Section L of this solicitation, at least one submission that successfully meets the requirements in this provision must be made. Joint ventures will be evaluated as a single offeror.

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Phase I Proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to; The

Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered.

3.1.1. Recency: 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 completed during the past five years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

The Recency of past performance information will be rated on a Pass/Fail basis

IAW the table below. Past Performance information that fails this condition may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

Past Performance Recency Evaluation Table

Rating Description

Pass Proposal clearly meets all minimum requirements.

Fail Proposal does not clearly meets all minimum requirements.

3.1.2. Relevancy: The offeror must adequately demonstrate in their proposal why the past performance is considered relevant to this acquisition. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. For the purposes of this solicitation, relevant contracts will generally consist of the following:

3.1.2.1. Projects involving the type of construction and work elements described in the attached SABER Master Statement of Work. Relevant past performance information must demonstrate design and construction experience with contracts that manage multiple, simultaneous task order type projects. Project work elements include renovation, alteration and repair, additions and upgrades, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and other major trades.

3.1.2.2. The Government considers the magnitude of projects as represented by their

Dollar or Yen values relevant. The Government may consider projects with individual values that, at minimum, exceed $100K (or the Yen equivalent) as more relevant.

3.1.2.3. The Government may consider projects more relevant that are completed under a framework agreement, including, but not limited to; Indefinite-Delivery-

Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, Job Ordering Contracts (JOC), Single

Award Task Order Contracts (SATOC), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts

(MATOC), Task Order Contracts (TOC) and Simplified Acquisition Base

Engineering Requirement (SABER) construction contracts.

3.1.2.4. Managing multiple simultaneous task order type projects is defined as having at minimum, three active projects at the same time.

3.1.2.5. Relevant past performance information must demonstrate performance within

Japan. At least one previous contract effort must be provided in order to meet the minimum requirement. To be considered relevant the effort must meet the requirements outlined in paragraph 3.1.2.1 of this provision.

3.1.2.6. Relevant past performance information must demonstrate performance with the US Government. At least one previous contract effort must be provided in order to meet the minimum requirement. To be considered relevant the effort must meet the requirements outlined in paragraph 3.1.2.1 of this provision.

3.1.3. Relevancy Performance Table: The following relevancy criteria listed in the table below apply and will be assigned to each effort/contract identified in the offeror’s

Past Performance:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

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.

3.1.4. Quality of Performance: All recent past performance will be reviewed to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and the usefulness of the performance. This information will be used by the evaluation team in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating.

3.1.5. 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.

3.1.6. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. 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.

3.1.7. Offerors may meet the above past performance requirements for Recency and/or

Relevancy through a Teaming/Partnership Agreement. If a Teaming/Partnership

Agreement is submitted as part of the proposal as outlined in Section L, each teaming offeror’s past performance will be evaluated separately based on recency, relevancy, and quality of performance using the same evaluation methods described above. The separate ratings of each party in the Teaming Agreement will be combined to determine an aggregate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

3.2. 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 and present performance. Offeror’s past performance confidence assessment ratings will be evaluated using the performance confidence assessments are defined as follows in the following table:

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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.

4. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION FACTOR

4.1. Technical Capability: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Capability will be evaluated to verify that the offeror’s technical proposal meets all of the minimum requirements stated in Section L of this solicitation. Proposals will be evaluated on a

Pass/Fail basis using the ratings and descriptions outline in table below.

Technical Capability Evaluation Table

Pass Proposal clearly meets all minimum requirements.

Fail Proposal does not clearly meets all minimum requirements.

4.2. The following areas will be evaluated as part of Technical Capability:

4.2.1. Construction/Design Narrative: This area will be evaluated to determine if the offeror can effectively incorporate all elements of the SABER Master Statement of Work, Master Specification, and the Seed Project Statement of Work. It will be further evaluated to determine if the Construction/Design Narrative outlines and explains a detailed strategy of works, addresses any regulatory concerns, addresses application of the offeror’s quality control program, and incorporates all elements of the price proposal.

4.2.2. Performance Schedule (AF IMT 3064): The Performance Schedule will be evaluated on if the offeror captured the major line items of the project, how the percentages/value of these line items relate to the cost proposal, how the contractor schedules/plots the work and how this coincides with the overall performance period for the task order.

4.2.3. Task Order Price Proposal: The Price Proposal will be evaluated on how accurate and complete the calculations are made using the Gordian CTC and the approved software program. The offeror must clearly demonstrate an understanding of pricing in accordance with the Gordian CTC and appropriately apply the applicable coefficient.

5. PRICE FACTOR

5.1. The offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the coefficients proposed for the ordering period in Exhibit A; Price Schedule.

5.2. The coefficients provided in the offeror’s Price Proposal will be used to automatically calculate a TEP that will be utilized in the Price evaluation. The TEP will be evaluated by the Government Price Analysis team using a set predetermined dollar figure, weighted according to the estimated work distributions outlined in Exhibit A; Price

Schedule.

5.3. The TEP will be generated using an Estimated Dollar Value (EDV) that was predetermined by the Government using a combination of historical information and projected work. The EDV will be used for evaluation purposes only. The offeror is advised that the Government is not committed beyond the minimum guarantee.

Information on past Government workload of small construction work is given in

Section B of the RFP. The EDV will not be disclosed outside the Government.

5.4. In addition to the EDV, project distribution rates (as outlined in Exhibit A; Price

Schedule) will be used to weight coefficients provided by the offerors to ensure the different magnitudes of works are accounted for in the accuracy in the TEP. Project distribution rates will be used for evaluation purposes only.

5.5. The TEP calculated is for evaluation purposes only and will not be contractually binding; however, the coefficients as proposed will be contractually binding as firm-fixed prices for issuances of TOs.

5.6. The EDV and project distribution rates outlined in Exhibit A; Price Schedule represent the Government’s best estimate of projected works across the life of the contract.

5.7. Failure to provide a coefficient for each line item and tier may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination.

5.8. Based on the Offeror’s price proposal in the Price Schedule, the proposed TEP will be evaluated for at least reasonableness and balanced pricing. Beyond that, should an offerors price schedule display any readily discernible indications of unrealistic pricing the Government reserves the right to perform a price realism analysis.

5.8.1. Reasonable: Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed price, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, and other agency supplements.

An assessment that the proposal is not reasonable will result in the offer being unacceptable for award.

5.8.2. Balanced: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), the Government will evaluate

Exhibit A; Price Schedule to determine if any proposed coefficient of one or more of the line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques. An assessment that the proposal is not balanced may result in the offer being unacceptable for award. Offerors are encouraged to include explanatory notes regarding any fluctuations in coefficients that may otherwise be viewed as unbalanced.

5.8.3. Realistic: Price Realism analysis may be used to evaluate if the price is realistic. For the purposes of this evaluation, price realism can be defined as too low price that reflects a lack of understanding on the contract requirement or displays an undue risk inherent to the offeror’s approach, that the Government believes could realistically threaten the efficacy of any contract award. An assessment that the proposal is not realistic may result in the offer being unacceptable for award