ATTACHMENT 5 - SECTION M 033122.pdf

FA282322R0004 – SECTION M

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award: This competitive acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection Procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS

215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a Best Value Award Decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government.

1.1 Tradeoff: Technical Experience will be rated Acceptable/Unacceptable with tradeoffs being made between Price and Past Performance. Only those Offerors whom are determined to have Acceptable Technical Experience will be further evaluated under Price and Past Performance. Price is approximately equal to Past Performance, in accordance with FAR

15.304. This may result in an award to an Offeror with a higher price for a higher past performance rating, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance outweighs price differences. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and sub-factors described in this provision.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible Offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: A single RFP will be issued with the anticipation of awarding a Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) IDIQ contract with approximately ten (10) active contracts and establishing a pool of approximately five (5) inactive IDIQ Contractors. The Government reserves the right to award less than or more than ten

(10) active contracts or establish a pool of less than or more than five (5) inactive Contractors. The exact number of awards will be determined by the SSA during the evaluation of proposals and will be based primarily on the number of proposals that are deemed to be most highly rated and the number of contracts that the Government determines can be effectively managed given Government resources. Once evaluations have been finalized, two separate pools of awardees will be created. Offerors will be ranked in descending order starting with the highest rated, best value Offeror. The Government anticipates initially establishing an active pool of approximately ten (10) MACC contract holders, who will compete for future requirements via individual task orders. Additionally, the Government anticipates establishing an inactive pool of approximately five (5) Contractors who will be eligible for consideration of a future MACC IDIQ contract in the event the Government determines it is in its best interest to On Ramp additional MACC Contractors during the 5 year ordering period of the MACC contract.

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements identified as evaluation factors. By submission of the offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable.

1.4 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If discussions are held and the Contracting Officer determines that the number of 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.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the Offeror’s proposal that may change the rating of the Offeror’s proposal.

1.5 Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Technical Experience Subfactor 1: Bonding Subfactor 2: Experience References Factor 2: Price Factor 3: Past Performance Experience

1.6 Process (Stepped Approach):

Step 1 - Proposals will be ranked from lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to highest TEP. Then, the Government will evaluate the fifteen (15) lowest TEP proposals under Factor 1 for Technical Experience acceptability.

Step 2 - If any of the fifteen (15) lowest proposals are found to have Unacceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1, then the Government will review the next lowest TEP proposal until fifteen (15) lowest TEP proposals are found to have Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 OR all offers have been evaluated.

Step 3 - Then the fifteen (15) lowest TEP proposals that are found to have Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 will be evaluated for Reasonable and Balanced Pricing under Factor 2, Price.

Step 4 - If any of the fifteen (15) lowest TEP proposals with Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 are found to have Unreasonable and/or Unbalanced Pricing under Factor 2, then the Government will review the next lowest TEP proposal under Factor 2 until fifteen (15) lowest TEP proposals are found to have Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 and determined to have Reasonable and Balanced Pricing under Factor 2 OR all offers have been evaluated.

Step 5 - Then the fifteen (15) lowest TEP proposals that are found to have Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 and Reasonable and Balanced Pricing under Factor 2 will then be evaluated under Factor 3 Past Performance.

Step 6 - If the fifteen (15) lowest TEP proposals with Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 and Reasonable and Balanced Pricing under Factor 2 are found to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment under Factor 3, these proposals represent the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to those Offerors without further consideration of any other Offerors.

Step 7 - If any of the fifteen (15) lowest TEP proposals with Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 and Reasonable and Balanced Pricing under Factor 2 does not receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating under Factor 3, then the Government will start at Step 1 until fifteen (15) proposals have been found to have Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1, Reasonable and Balanced Pricing under Factor 2, and have been found to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment under Factor 3, OR all offers have been evaluated.

Step 8 - The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision by determining if the best value to the Government is to pay a higher price for a higher past performance assessment rating.

The Government reserves the following rights:

a) To award a contract to a higher priced Offeror who has a “Substantial Confidence” rating.

b) To award a contract to the lowest price Offeror who has at least a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating.

c) To award a contract to the lowest price Offeror who has a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

The ten (10) highest ranked Offerors will be considered in the active pool and the five (5) remaining will be in the inactive pool. Those in the active pool will be awarded an IDIQ and the minimum task order will be issued to support a kick off meeting. Those in the inactive pool will NOT be awarded contracts until, if, or when On Ramping occurs.

As mentioned above, the Government reserves the right to award less than or more than ten (10) active contracts or to establish a pool of more than five (5) inactive Contractors.

Step 9 - If the Government chooses to enter into discussions at any point during the evaluation process, discussions will be conducted with those Offerors whose proposals are in the competitive range. After discussions are closed and Final Proposal Revisions received, the process will begin again at Step 1.

Task Order FA2823-22-F-XXXX Award - Once the active Awardees are selected, the Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision based on the active Awardees for Task Order FA2823-22-F- XXXX (TBD at AWARD) by determining if the best value to the Government is to pay a higher price for a higher past performance assessment rating.

The Government reserves the following rights:

a) To award a contract to a higher priced Offeror who has a “Substantial Confidence” rating.

b) To award a contract to the lowest price Offeror who has at least a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating.

c) To award a contract to the lowest price Offeror who has a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

2.0 Factors and Sub-factors:

2.1 Factor 1 – Technical Experience: The Offeror shall address in detail their technical experience for meeting the Government’s minimum requirements of this factor. Specific required experience attributes must be supported by narrative;

inferences will not be made by the Agency. The minimum requirements for an Acceptable Technical Experience rating are defined below:

Subfactor 1 Bonding Requirement: The Prime Contractor must provide proof of bonding capacity of at least $10M (Single)/$20M (Aggregate) to support the MACC program. Offeror must have a letter from an approved surety on surety letterhead that states the Offeror has a relationship with the company and required bonding capacity has been obtained or will be obtained upon award of the MACC contract. Provide proof of bonding capacity with bonding capability letters from an approved surety listed with the Department of Treasury. The list of approved sureties can be found at http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570_a-z.htm

Letters must be notarized and signed by someone who can represent the surety. Letters signed by agents are unacceptable unless accompanied by a Power of Attorney granting proper authority to the agent.

An Offeror will be determined acceptable for Subfactor 1 when: Offeror has provided the proof of bonding capacity of at least $10M (Single)/$20M (Aggregate).

Subfactor 2 Experience References: The Offeror shall submit six (6) project references to address in detail their technical experience and capability in the format described and that meet the recency and relevancy definitions as defined below:

The Offeror shall complete and submit each project using the Technical Experience Reference Worksheet (Section L Attachment L3); the use of this sheet to submit project information is mandatory. Projects submitted in other than the mandatory sheet will not be evaluated. Except as specifically requested, the government will not evaluate information submitted in addition to this form; total length for each project shall not exceed four (4) pages.

Recency: Completed within the last five (5) years (from the date of issuance of this solicitation) of similar scope and complexity of those expected to be awarded on this program. In lieu of a complete project, the Offeror may submit projects that are ongoing as long as (a) the project is at least 80% complete by this solicitation’s issuance date, and (b) the Offeror can validate percent completion with a government approved progress report. For commercial contracts, an equivalent customer validation of progress completion report may be used in lieu of a government approved progress report. Projects that do not meet the recency definition SHALL NOT be evaluated.

Relevancy: For purpose of this evaluation, the project referenced shall demonstrate the Contractor’s experience for new construction work for builds, design/builds and/or renovation/repair of existing facilities to include multiple disciplines (Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, Electrical, or Civil Work), multiple divisions/trades (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc.), and or Subcontractors. A project is defined as a complete project effort performed under a single task order or contract. For multiple award and IDIQ type contracts, the contract as a whole shall not be submitted as a project; rather, Offerors shall submit as a project the work performed under a single task order.

The government will evaluate the acceptability of Offeror’s technical experience on relevant projects based on the following information:

1) The projects referenced shall have dollar values from $500K or greater

2) The six (6) submitted projects must demonstrate experience according to the following breakdown:

i. Offeror shall submit four (4) projects valued at least $500K which include at least one (1) project with two (2) or more disciplines and two (2) or more divisions/trades AND at least one (1) project with three

(3) or more disciplines and three (3) or more divisions/trades.

ii. Offeror shall submit two (2) projects valued over $2M which include at least one (1) project with two

(2) or more disciplines and two (2) or more divisions/trades AND at least one (1) project with three (3) or more disciplines and three (3) or more divisions/trades.

iii. Of the six (6) submitted projects, Offeror shall submit at least two (2) multi-disciplined projects with concurrent period of performance at geographically separate locations to demonstrate experience managing multiple concurrent projects.

iv. The projects reference should demonstrate the Offeror’s experience executing projects.

In the event an Offeror is a JV, the Offeror shall submit projects executed as the JV firm, or each JV member provided at least one (1) relevant project to demonstrate experience and provide a comprehensive narrative to demonstrate experience relevant to their role on this program.

An Offeror is determined acceptable when: Offeror has provided six projects that have been completed within the last five (5) years from date of issuance of this solicitation and/or for ongoing project proof of at least 80% complete provided and Offeror has demonstrated experience on projects of various size, scope, and complexity (in accordance with the relevancy definition) breakdown requirements, and if an Offeror is a JV, the Offeror submitted projects executed as the JV firm, or each JV member provided at least one (1) relevant project to demonstrate experience.

If either of the Factor 1 Subfactors are rated as “Unacceptable” then “Factor 1: Technical Experience” will be rated as “Unacceptable” and the proposal shall not be evaluated any further.

2.2 Factor 2 – Price: The fifteen (15) lowest TEP proposals that have been found to have Acceptable Technical experience will be evaluated for price as follows:

The Offeror's Volume II: Price portion of the proposal will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for reasonable and balanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award. Price will be evaluated for the FFP CLIN(s) on the basic effort and all options (if applicable). The team will review the 50 Division Cost Estimating Worksheet(s) (Section L Attachment L1) to ensure the major work elements are identified within each division and are sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the included quantities for materials, labor, and other services are not significantly overstated or understated.

The evaluated price may include adjustments to offset any competitive advantage from the use of additional Government Furnished Equipment, Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Facilities (not furnished to all Offerors), or other Government costs associated with the proposed approach. To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, Global Insight Indices, and any other resource available to the Government.

Reasonableness & Balanced Pricing: The Offeror's Cost/Price Volume of the proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3, in order to determine if it is reasonable and balanced.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. For a price to balance, the 50 Division Cost Estimating Worksheet(s) (Section L Attachment L1) must be determined not to have any materials, labor, and other services that are significantly overstated or understated. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

Additionally, although adequate price competition is expected, if only one offer is received in response to this solicitation the responding Offeror will be required to provide certified cost or pricing data in accordance with Table 15-2, at FAR

15.408 and DFARs Clause 252.215-7009.

If the Offeror’s Cost/Price Volume of the proposal is not found to be reasonable and balanced, it will render the Offeror’s proposal un-awardable and that Offeror’s proposal will be removed from any further consideration.

2.3 Factor 3 - Past Performance:

Past Performance Information: The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on the information provided by the Offeror and data independently obtained from other Government sources.

Offerors SHALL use the same references as provided in the Technical Volume under Technical Experience Reference (Attachment L3) for their past performance references.

Scope: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s likelihood of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures Section 3.1.3.3 Performance Confidence Assessment, Table 5 (Referenced in DFARS 215.300).

Submissions: Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L of this Solicitation. 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: Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element within the Past Performance Information forms (Section L, Attachment L5) or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Clarification 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.

Recency Assessment: For purpose of this evaluation, recency of projects is defined as new construction work for builds, design/builds and/or renovation/repair of existing facilities to include multiple disciplines (Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, Electrical, or Civil Work), multiple divisions/trades (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc.), and or Subcontractors projects completed within the last five (5) years (from the date of issuance on this solicitation). In lieu of a complete project, the Offeror may submit projects that are ongoing as long as (a) the project is at least 80% complete by this solicitation’s issuance date, and (b) the Offeror can validate percent completion with an approved progress report. Past Performance Information submitted that does not meet the recency definition WILL NOT be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment: In determining relevancy for individual past performance submissions, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, Joint Venture Partner, or Major Subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Past Performance Information Forms (Section L, Attachment L5) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Factor 3 will be assessed and assigned a rating based on all requirements defined in Table M1 below:

TABLE M1 – RELEVANCY RATINGS

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Scope

Magnitude

Complexities Very

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities

Offeror demonstrated experience as the Prime

Contractor and/or Subcontrator in all of the areas of new construction work (Builds and/or Design/Builds) and renovation/repair of existing facilities to include multi-disciplines (Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, Electrical, or Civil

Work), multiple divisions/trades (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc.), and or Subcontractors.

All projects value over $500K with two valued over

$2M

Offeror submits:

1. Four (4) projects valued at least $500K which include at least one (1) project with two (2) or more disciplines and two

(2) or more divisions/trades AND at least one (1) project with three (3) or more disciplines and three (3) or more divisions/trades.

2. Two (2) projects valued over $2M which include at least one (1) project with two (2) or more disciplines and two (2) or more divisions/trades AND at least one (1) project with three

(3) or more disciplines and three (3) or more divisions/trades.

3. Of the six (6) submitted projects, at least two (2) multi-disciplined projects with concurrent period of performance at geographically separate locations to demonstrate experience managing multiple concurrent projects.

4. Performed as Prime on three (3) or more of the projects.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and

Contractor and/or Subcontractor in new construction work (Builds and/or Design/Builds) and renovation/repair of existing facilities to include multi-disciplines (Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, Electrical, or Civil

Work), multiple divisions/trades (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc.), and or Subcontractors.

All projects value over $500K with least one (1) project with two (2) or more disciplines and two

(2) or more divisions/trades AND at least one (1) project with three (3) or more disciplines and three (3) or more divisions/trades.

2. Two (2) projects valued over $2M which include at least one (1) project with two (2) or more disciplines and two (2) or more divisions/trades AND at least one (1) project with three

(3) or more disciplines and three (3) or more divisions/trades.

3. Of the six (6) submitted projects, at least two (2) multi-disciplined projects with concurrent period of performance at geographically separate locations to demonstrate experience managing multiple concurrent projects.

4. Performed as Prime on two (2) of the projects.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and and/or Subcontractor in new construction work

(Builds and/or Design/Builds) and renovation/repair of existing facilities to include multi-disciplines

(Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, Electrical, or Civil Work), multiple divisions/trades

(plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc.), and or Subcontractors.

All projects value over $500K with least one (1) project with two (2) or more disciplines and two

(2) or more divisions/trades AND at least one (1) project with three (3) or more disciplines and three (3) or more divisions/trades.

2. Two (2) projects valued over $2M which include at least one (1) project with two (2) or more disciplines and two (2) or more divisions/trades AND at least one (1) project with three

(3) or more disciplines and three (3) or more divisions/trades.

3. Of the six (6) submitted projects, at least two (2) multi-disciplined projects with concurrent period of performance at geographically separate locations to demonstrate experience managing multiple concurrent projects.

4. Performed as Prime on less than two (2) of the projects.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities

Offeror did not demonstrated

Contractor on any new construction work (Builds and/or Design/Builds) and renovation/repair of existing facilities to include multi-disciplines (Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Fire Protection, Electrical, or Civil

Work), multiple divisions/trades (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc.), and or Subcontractors.

All projects value over $500K with

No prime contractor experience

Performance Confidence Assessment: The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence and No Confidence, as defined in Table M2 below.

Offerors with no recent and relevant past performance history, or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence.”

3.0 Additional Information:

Solicitations Requirements, Terms and Conditions: 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 to any exceptions taken.

Number of Contracts: The Government intends to award approximately fifteen (15) contracts over the life of the MACC contract; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, the prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

Correction Potential of Proposals: 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. Clarification conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

Discussions with Offerors: The Government reserves the right to award a contract based only on initial proposals without establishing a competitive range and conducting discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct discussions, the Government will establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with all Offerors included in the competitive range. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision.

Responsibility: A Contractor Responsibility Determination will be made IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 for the prospective awardees.

TABLE M2 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.