Attachment 4 - Section M - Draft.pdf

Attachment 4

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

UK WIDE GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SERVICES

WITHIN

UNITED KINGDOM VISITING FORCES (USVF)

WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM (UK)

20 JUNE 2024

M-1 The Government will award an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1) Technical

• Management Plan

• Quality Control Plan to include Mission Essential Plan

2) Past Performance

3) Price

The evaluation will utilize a Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) where performance is significantly more important than price. Technical sub-factors will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

The assessment of recent and relevant past performance, resulting in a performance confidence assessment rating, will be based on the results of information from questionnaire completed by the vendors customers (identified by the respective offerors) and any other sources of information available to the Contracting Officer.

Evaluation of these factors will utilize a best value tradeoff evaluation approach in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the

Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

M-2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-2.1 This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using Performance Price

Tradeoff source selection process in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Part 15, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 20 August

2022 and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (DAFFARS) Mandatory

Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection as revised June 2023. The Government will award one IDIQ contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror (IAW FAR Part 9) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. This will be a Performance Price Tradeoff where performance is significantly more important than price. Technical capability will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government will not make an award to that offeror. Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation.

M-2.2 METHODOLOGY

M-2.2.1 Initially, offers will be evaluated for responsiveness with minimum solicitation requirements. The compliance evaluation will determine if the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Offerors will be determined to be either “Responsive” or “Non-Responsive”.

M-2.2.2 Proposal will then be evaluated to assess technical capability using the sub-factors listed in M-1. Failure to meet the minimum requirements outlined in these sub-factors may result in the offer being removed from consideration for award.

M-2.2.3 Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant and recent performance information based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources to assess past performance. For the purpose of this solicitation recent contracts are defined as those on which some portion of performance occurred during the last three (3) years from date of receipt of proposal.

Relevant performance includes past/present effort involving similar scope and magnitude of effort and performance, greater consideration may be given to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this Request for Proposal, based on the offeror’s demonstrated assessment of

Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence or Neutral

Confidence as defined in Table 3 below.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Neutral

Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably, nor non-favorably.

M-2.2.4 Price.

Price shall be evaluated for reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404(b)(2)(i) and balance IAW FAR

15.404(g) as detailed in section M-2.4 below.

M-2.2.5 Best Value Determination.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions. Upon completion of the

Government’s initial evaluation of proposals, exchanges with offerors may occur, for purpose of clarifications and communications in accordance with FAR Part 15. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with offerors for the purpose of negotiations at any point during the evaluation if deemed in the best interest of the Government. Once discussions, if conducted, have been concluded, the Contracting Officer will request Final Proposal Revisions from each of the offerors remaining within the competitive range.

M-2.2.6 Award of Task Orders. Upon award, the Government intends to issue Task Orders for

Grounds Maintenance Services for each location. The Government reserves the right to issue a

Task Order, subject to the availability of funds, within 60 days of award of the IDIQ contract.

M-2.3 EVALUATION FACTORS RATINGS

In order to be considered awardable, there must be a pass rating for each of the technical sub-factors. The three (3) evaluation factors used to evaluate proposals are: Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

M-2.3.1 Technical Capability. The Government will evaluate technical proposals to assess the offerors proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirements.

The Government shall use a pass/fail technical rating listed in Table 1 below.

Technical Capability shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors where all sub-factors are considered equal:

M-2.3.1.1 Management Plan: This sub-factor is minimally met when the offeror has thoroughly addressed all activities identified in Section L, Management Plan paragraphs a through c. This includes evaluation of management plans by offerors that provide detailed descriptions and illustrate complete timelines for contract performance during the minimum 30-day transition period and management of personnel throughout the life of the contract. This includes but is not limited to providing a timeline to outline to key mobilization activities, providing an organizational structure addressing the key personnel identified in paragraph 4.19 of the PWS (as a minimum).

M-2.3.1.2 Quality Control Plan: This sub-factor is minimally met when the offeror has thoroughly addressed all quality control activities identified in Section L, Quality Control Plan paragraphs a through d. This includes providing a Quality Control Plan that details the approach to successfully perform to the standards of the PWS and meet the quality thresholds identified in the Service Summary. plan shall include, but is not limited to the methods of surveillance, the methods of documentation, frequency/schedule of inspections at each location, management of subcontractor performance, and BASH, SSSI, and surge/short notice support. Note that if selected for award, the Quality Control Plan will be incorporated into the contract and will be monitored for compliance on the Service Summary as a performance objective item.

This sub-factor is also minimally met when the offeror has thoroughly addressed how resources and personnel will be available and how the offeror intends to use them during a crisis or emergency outlined in PWS paragraph 4.11 and in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulations (DFARs) 252.237-7023 Continuation of Essential Contractor Services and shall include, but is not limited to, the items listed in L-5.4.1.

Tabel 1 Technical Pass / Fail Ratings

Pass Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Fail Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

M-2.3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offerors probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offerors record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the solicitation requirements.

Recency is defined as: Three (3) years from the issuance of the solicitation. The period of performance for past performance submitted must be a minimum of six (6) months.

Relevancy is defined as:

a) Performed full range of grounds maintenance services as described in the PWS.

b) Managed at least four (4) separate locations simultaneously.

c) Performed services across multiple counties/regions/states simultaneously.

d) Serviced a minimum of 10,000 acres; and

e) Minimum annual dollar value of $2 million.

The Government will validate the relevancy and recency of the information contained in the past performance contract reference. Relevant performance includes past/present effort involving similar scope and magnitude of effort and performance, greater consideration may be given to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will assign a relevancy rating for each recent past performance contract reference IAW Table 2.

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

All recent and relevant past performance contract references will be evaluated to determine how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts.

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 information rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance IAW 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.”

Sources of Past Performance. In addition to the Past Performance Questionnaires (attachment 1) completed by the points of contact listed in the proposal, the Government will also utilize data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources during past performance evaluation. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all

CAGE/DUNS numbers of the Contractors who are part of a partnership/joint venture or teaming agreement identified in the Offerors proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontracting

Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror.

NOTE: Completed questionnaires shall be emailed from past performance points of contact to: 48CONS.PKB.Grounds@us.af.mil.

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment using the ratings in Table 3.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Rating

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.

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.

M-2.4 PRICE EVALUATION

The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

The Government will evaluate prices submitted in the Pricing Schedule (Attachment 2). Failure to propose on all CLINs will render the proposal non-responsive.

The Government Evaluation Team will present a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to the Source

Selection Authority. An offerors TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities for each

CLIN (X001-X039) identified in the Pricing Schedule (tabs FY25, FY26, FY27, FY28, FY29, FY30, FY31and FY32 in Attachment 2) by the proposed unit price to calculate the extended annual total amount for each CLIN. The extended prices for each CLIN will then be added together.

In accordance with FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, the Government may require continued performance of any of the services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. For evaluation purposes the Government will add fifty per cent (50%) of the total sum for the extended amount of the final year in the ordering period to each offeror’s total price to arrive at the Total Evaluation Price (TEP). Offerors shall not submit a price for the Option to

Extend Services clause.

In the event there is a difference between a unit price and the extended total amount, the unit price will be held to be the intended offer and the total of the CLINs will be recomputed accordingly. If the offeror provides a total amount for a CLIN but fails to enter the unit price, the total amount divided by the respective CLIN quantity will be held to be the intended unit price.

Offerors should propose the best available pricing to the Government for each CLIN in arriving at the most competitive price. Price information submitted in each offerors price proposal, as required by the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.305.

The Government may use any of the price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b), and other

Agency supplements, to determine reasonableness. As assessment that the proposal is not reasonable will result in the offer being ineligible for award. An Offeror’s proposal shall resent the Offeror’s best efforts to respond to the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate Solicitation Attachment 2 – Pricing Schedule, to determine if one or more of the line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques IAW 15.404-1(g). The proposal may be rejected if it is determined to be unbalanced and as a result poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Any TEP resulting in the determination of being found unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 and FAR

31.201-3, unbalanced IAW FAR 15.404-1, or incomplete may not be considered for award.

(End of Addendum)