Attachment 3 - Section M.pdf

FA4528-22-R-0001

A. SOURCE SELECTION

1. This is a subjective tradeoff source selection in which competing offerors’ technical capability and past performance history, when combined, will be evaluated on a basis more important than cost or price considerations, IAW FAR 15.101(b)(2). The source selection will be conducted in accordance with Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, 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 electronically at www.acquisition.gov. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as indicated in Paragraph 5. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the PAMP Maintenance Services at Minot AFB.

3. Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions. 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. Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. 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 re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

4. 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 sub-factors. 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.

5. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

a. Step 1: Evaluate all proposals for timliness.

b. Step 2: Evaluate all timely proposals for technical acceptability. The Government may request clarifications for proposals through ENs.

c. Step 3: Assess past performance confidence for each offeror.

d. Step 4: Evaluate all proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 & FAR 31.201-3), balanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g)), and realistic, then list them in order by total evaluated price.

e. Step 5: The Source Selection Evaluation Board will compile a Source Selection Decision Document for the Source Selection Authority to assess the integrated best value to the Government and upon contract clearance, select the successful offeror.

6. Responsibility: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors: The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror that provides the best value to the Government determined by using a Subjective Tradeoff as outlined in Section A paragraph 1. The proposals will be rated against the following factors and sub-factors described below with past performance history and technical capability combined being evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations.

Factor 1: Technical Sub-factor 1: Quality Control Plan Sub-factor 2: Management/Manpower Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2. Technical Factor: 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 sub-factor. Offerors that fail to clearly address any of the following requirements may receive an Unacceptable rating for this sub-factor. Any sub-factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially 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.

Table 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation, with a low to moderate risk* of unsuccessful contract performance.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and/or there is a high risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

*Low risk has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate risk can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Quality Control Plan

DESCRIPTION: Offeror shall submit a Quality Control Plan that addresses all requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The plan must address methods and processes to be used for performing monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual preventative maintenance. The plan shall also include procedures to identify potential areas of risk or degradation to the PAMP, as well as methods for correcting deficiencies.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the QCP demonstrates an effective performance/quality monitoring system that addresses all requirements of the PWS and will enable the contractor to identify and correct their own errors/discrepancies.

1270239583A Highlight

Sub-factor 2: Management/Manpower Plan

DESCRIPTION: The offeror shall provide a management staffing approach that adequately provides personnel qualified to meet the requirements of the PWS. This should include retention of personnel, organization structure, and related commercial and/or government experience supporting Propane Air Mixing Plant services. The offeror shall submit a realistic approach to their hiring and retention process that enables contract performance at Minot AFB, ND.

Measure of Merit: An acceptable rating is met when the plan identifies individuals with a minimum of five (5) years of experience in projects of similar size and scope to fulfill the key positions of Contract Manager and Site Superintendent. Provide information on the individual’s name, title, duty, years of experience and experience level relating to similar projects.

3. Past Performance Factor: The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), (2) the references provided by the offeror, and (3) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. References and other data will first be evaluated for recency.

To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Recent references will be given a relevancy rating per Table 4 below. Relevant past performance demonstrates PAMP experience as defined by the North American Industry System code (NAICS Code) 237120 with a total contract dollar value of at least $500,000.00 and having similar complexity and function, utilizing trades relevant to those required by this solicitation.

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, subcontractor or teaming partner. The Past Performance Information Forms (PPIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

DoD Table 4 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply the requirements that meet users’ needs, based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance in unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” 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, detailed below.

1270239583A Highlight

DoD Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Rating Description

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. Price Factor: Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, or unbalanced may not be considered for award. An Offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated by multiplying the line item quantity by the proposed unit price for each Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. Unit prices will prevail. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and completeness of the proposed total evaluated price.

a. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

b. Reasonableness: 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.

c. The Government shall rank all offers by total evaluated price.

Offerors are specifically advised that under this evaluation method, the Government may determine an offer unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items and sub-line items. Prices are materially unbalanced if they are significantly overstated or understated in relation to the actual cost of that work. The price will also be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements as expressed by the solicitation.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 by adding an additional 6-months of potential extension based on the offeror's final option period prices to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period and all option periods including the potential six-month extension of services period. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period.

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. If at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of price.

5. Subjective Tradeoff.

a. The SSA shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with established criteria herein. This Subjective Tradeoff decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria, considering recommendations and minority opinions. The source selection decision reflects the integrated, comparative assessment and includes the rationale for any business judgments/tradeoffs made including benefits associated with additional costs.

b. If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

c. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of other than “Substantial Confidence”. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

d. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Attachment 3

- Section L Instructions to Offerors. to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance.

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.