Attachment 20-Section M-MS Group ORC Evaluation Criteria.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition is a competitive, 8(a) small business set-aside, best value, subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 and 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance 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 subfactors 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 our requirements affordably in a way that will be most advantageous to the Government. 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 technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior 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 judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Mississippi Group Optimized Remediation Contract (ORC).

1.2 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation the “correction potential” of any deficiency. Judgement such as “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 from the competitive range.

1.3 Discussions

It is the intent of the Government to award a contract without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of proposals. Communications and/or exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of https://www.acquisition.gov/ proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer 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 IAW FAR 52.215-1.

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 as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and administrative 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.

1.5 Responsibility Determination

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is required to make a determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.1. As part of the determination, pre-award surveys may be conducted and the PCO may request assistance from the cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office. If the Contracting Officer determines a small business to be non-responsible, the Contracting Officer will refer the matter to the Small Business Administration which will decide whether to issue a Certificate of Competency (see FAR 9.104-3 and FAR 19.6). If an Offeror is determined to be non-responsible, that Offeror will be unawardable.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and subfactors for Award

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach Subfactor 2 – Management Approach

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price

2.1 Relative Importance

The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance. Within the Technical factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all other evaluation factors other than Price, when combined are significantly more important than price.

3.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

i) Combined Technical/Risk Adjectival Rating. The combined technical/risk rating will be used to evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposal meets or exceeds the Technical/Risk requirements.

(1) In evaluating the Offeror’s proposal, the Government will document in the contract file:

(a) Positive or negative qualities in the proposal meeting the definition of significant strength, strength, weakness, significant weakness, uncertainty and deficiency.

(b) Associated risks of the proposal meeting the definition of low, moderate, high, and unacceptable.

(2) The following finding definitions in Table 1 and rating definitions in Table 2A, and 2B will be used in making the determinations.

(3) Each Technical Subfactor will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in table 2A. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Table 1 – Findings Definitions Finding Type Description

Significant Strength

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Deficiency

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Table 2A – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table 2B – Technical Risk Rating Method

Risk

Low

Proposal may contain weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

NOTE: A separate Risk Rating will not be assigned for the Technical subfactors. This table only defines the risk levels to allow the color rating to be determined for the subfactors.

ii) Subfactor 1 - Technical Approach.

This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach and will determine the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements of the PWS.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates, at a minimum, the following:

1) A comprehensive technical approach ensuring that each Performance Objective (PO) of the PWS Table 1: Performance Table and other applicable agreements such as regulatory agreements (FFA), decision documents, and project workplans are achieved or exceeded within the applicable performance period.

2) For each site in table 1 of the PWS, the Offeror’s Technical Approach shall identify any unique aspects, risks or challenges that may exist, and what actions or alternate approaches they will take to overcome those challenges to ensure that PO will still be achieved.

3) The Offeror's proposal shall also include a sound and realistic activity-based Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) aligned with the CLIN/Sub-CLIN Structure provided with the RFP, consistent with the Offeror’s proposed approach, and in accordance with the requirements in the PWS. At a minimum, the Offeror’s IMS shall:

(a) Present feasible timing and sequencing of all activities and documents necessary to demonstrate achievement of the Performance Objectives within the Performance Periods.

(b) Demonstrate incorporation of feasible Government and Regulatory review periods as defined in the PWS.

(c) Identify timing of decision points addressing risk mitigation and/or contingency strategies.

4) The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate their understanding of any and all unique requirements such as, but not limited to, state/installation specific registrations, licensing requirements, etc., and demonstrate how they will comply with these requirements.

iii) Subfactor 2 – Management Approach.

The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes a comprehensive Management Plan that includes identification of risks, risk mitigation strategies, and contingencies that may impact the overall management of the contract. In addition, the Management Plan shall identify sufficient qualified Key Personnel resources and include a qualified field and management team, including key personnel with relevant experience to efficiently and effectively achieve the POs within the PPs and ensure quality services and deliverables.

The Offeror’s Management Plan shall demonstrate the requirements in the following order:

• Efficient and effective management of team members and subcontractors including clear identification of roles, responsibilities, and communication strategies for key personnel, subcontractors, and other relevant team members Provide an organizational chart depicting above elements.

Identify key personnel with qualifications consistent with those specified in

Section L, Attachment L-1.

• Effective and efficient management of the work in order to meet the requirements of the PWS including management of multiple and concurrent events.

• Relevant team experience with the remediation technologies proposed.

• Procedures/processes to ensure services that result in submission of high-quality technical documents and deliverables. At a minimum, the contractor shall include procedures/processes that address the following:

change management prime and subcontractor staffing management sampling and analysis health and safety An effective communication strategy between stakeholders (Air Force, Contractor, Regulators, and Community).

Procedures/processes to identify, monitor, mitigate, and/or address management risks.

4.0 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet the requirements of the PWS, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of recent, relevant and overall quality of Past Performance Information (PPI) that pertains to the product or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, general trends in the Offeror’s performance, the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the Offeror's overall performance record.

i) Contracts submitted where the Offeror performed as a Prime may be evaluated more favorably. Offerors that submit multiple contracts (up to a maximum of five (5)) demonstrating the Offeror’s most recent and relevant experience may be evaluated more favorably.

ii) The past performance factor considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance that meet the contract requirements. There are three elements to the past performance evaluation:

(1) RECENCY: The Government will first determine whether the submitted contract is recent. Recent means a contract completed, or substantially completed (80% or more), within the last five (5) years from the solicitation issuance date. Percentage complete is defined as the total amount of work completed on the contract.

Submitted contracts that are not recent will not be evaluated.

(2) RELEVANCY: Next, the Government will determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort acquired through this source selection.

Relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria listed herein. In assessing relevancy, the Government will consider the similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The ratings include Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant in accordance with Table 3 below. PPI not determined recent will not be evaluated for relevancy.

It is the Governments intent for Offerors to have experience with all three of the key scope characteristics below as they are critical to the successful execution of the MS group ORC.

Individual contracts demonstrating one or more of the these key scope characteristics may receive a higher Relevancy rating:

• Experience that demonstrates progression through the phases of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

• Experience in design, implementation, and operation & maintenance (O&M) of treatment systems (e.g., pump and treat, air sparge/biosparge, soil vapor extraction, in-situ or ex-situ chemical oxidation, indoor air mitigation, etc.), capping, and soil excavations.

• Experience working remediation projects in USEPA Region IV.

In addition to the above key scope characteristics, individual contracts demonstrating one or more of the below performance characteristics may receive additional consideration for a higher Relevancy rating:

• Experience managing at least one performance-based contract (PBC) with a period of performance ranging between 7-10 years in length.

• Experience managing a PBC with 15 or more sites or areas of concern (AOC).

• Experience meeting contract PO within the performance period on 75% of sites on a PBC meeting the above key scope characteristics.

• Established experience between the Offeror and proposed team members including subcontractors and affiliates.

• Experience with Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and MS Professional Engineer.

• Experience that demonstrates progression through multiple phases of State of MS cleanup programs

• Experience managing comingled areas of concern during investigation and cleanup requiring more than one remedial action or technology to be implemented under differing regulatory frameworks, to include legacy and emerging contaminants.

• Experience reducing the overall time to complete the environmental cleanup action through optimization which may involve an innovative cleanup strategy or remedy

Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Rating Definition

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant

(SR)

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

Not Relevant (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(3) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: For each recent and relevant PPI submittal, the government will assess the quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all PPI available, regardless of its source, such as results from Past Performance Questionnaires, Past Performance Information along with associated interviews (if needed), CPARS, etc. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information. PPI not determined relevant will not be evaluated for quality.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as PPI that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse PPI to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. For adverse PPI 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.

(4) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) process will result in an overall rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited

Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in the table below. 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. Clearly demonstrating management actions employed in overcoming problems allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. The Government will consider performance in the aggregate to ensure that all three of the key scope characteristics are covered within the totality of the submitted contracts (overall project portfolio). Offerors that do NOT cover all three of the key scope characteristics within the totality of their submitted contracts will be ineligible to receive a Substantial Confidence rating for Past Performance. Based on the Offeror's cumulative record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance, the Offeror will be assigned one of the ratings in table 4 below.

Table 4 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Rating Definition

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 low expectations 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.

If no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record and experience is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned this factor will be assigned a rating of “Neutral Confidence”, however, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may give more favor to a proposal with satisfactory or better past performance than to one with a neutral rating.

5.0 FACTOR 3: PRICE

i) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing on individual Contract Line- Item Numbers (CLIN) or Sub-CLINs. The TEP consists of all the Offeror's proposed sub-CLINs, regardless of year in which they may be exercised. A proposal is complete when all price data, as outlined in the RFP, has been submitted in the proper Schedule B format (as included in this RFP). A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

ii) The Government will evaluate whether Offeror has proposed in accordance with the CLIN/Sub-CLIN structure. The Offeror shall not “stretch” by including zero-dollar Sub-CLINs. This may constitute unbalanced pricing and be determined to present an unacceptable risk to the USAF. For example, the Performance Period (PP) for a site is Site Closeout (SC) in seven (7) years. The proposal includes zero-dollar Sub-CLINs for Long Term Management (LTM) activities for years six (6) and seven (7).

iii) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

iv) The total price shall be inclusive of all options.

v) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2), in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403- 1(c)(1)).

(b) Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications.

(i) The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

(ii) The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

(iii) Expert technical advice should be obtained when analyzing similar items, or commercial items that are “of a type” or requiring minor modifications, to ascertain the magnitude of changes required and to assist in pricing the required changes.

(iv) Per DFARS Case 2020-D008 and section 803 of the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, historical prices paid by the Government cannot properly comprise the only factor when determining prices fair and reasonable. If additional information is required to determine proposed prices fair and reasonable, contractors are required to make a good faith effort to comply with the Government’s reasonable requests to furnish data other than certified cost or pricing data.

(c) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(d) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

(e) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(f) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

(g) Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror.

The first two techniques at 15.404-1(b)(2) are the preferred techniques. However, if the Contracting Officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices or previous contract prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the Contracting Officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

vi) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g).

(a) Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line-items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The greatest risks associated with unbalanced pricing occur when --

(i) Startup work, mobilization, first articles, or first article testing are separate line-items;

(ii) Base quantities and option quantities are separate line items; or

(iii) The evaluated price is the aggregate of estimated quantities to be ordered under separate line items of an indefinite-delivery contract.

(b) All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If cost or price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall --

(i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision;

and

(ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance.

(c) An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

The Contract Documentation volume will be reviewed for completeness. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through L, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required under the Contract Documentation volume, including the completion of the Attachment 16c- L3,“Notice of Non-Government Advisors”. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or removed from further evaluation.