Attachment 6 Section M.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a Past Performance Trade Off source selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and DoD Source Selection Procedures, 01 April 2016. These regulations are available electronically at http://acquisition.gov. The Government will conduct a competitive source selection in which technical capability and past performance history, when combined, will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations, IAW FAR 15.101-1(b)(2). A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR Part 9.1, 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). 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. The Government reserves the right to evaluate multiple offerors, and award a contract based upon Source Selection Authority (SSA) determination that it is in the Government's best interest. The award will be based on a consideration of one or more of the following items: available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of an awardable proposal, consistent with Trade-off procedures outlined in this solicitation, following completion of an integrated assessment of the proposals received.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award a single contract for the

Dyess Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineer Requirements (SABER) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Program. The SABER IDIQ contract falls under the NAICS 236220 “Commercial and Institutional Building Construction”. The period of performance is one (1), base period and three (3), 1-year, option periods for a 4-year total ordering period. The total duration of contractual coverage shall not exceed four (4) years and six (6) months. It is anticipated that the options will be exercised. It will be a Firm Fixed Price contract, with a $20,000,000.00 ceiling.

1.3. 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 Final Proposal Revision are subject to re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable or the price is no longer fair and reasonable, the offeror may be ineligible for award. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. A competitive range, if required, may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

http://acquisition.gov./

1.4. 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 subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation will result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

1.5. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

1.5.1. Step 1: Review all timely proposals for completeness and eligibility.

1.5.2. Step 2: Evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability.

1.5.3. Step 3: Evaluate technically acceptable proposals for past performance acceptability.

1.5.4. Step 4: Evaluate seed project price to determine if it’s fair and reasonable.

1.5.5. Step 5: At this time, proposals rated technically acceptable, with past performance confidence assessment ratings of substantial, satisfactory, or neutral, and pricing determined to be fair and reasonable based on competition will be considered for an award. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

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.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: Evaluation factors and subfactors represent specific characteristics that are tied to this requirement. The below evaluation factors and subfactors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical

2.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Management/Organizational Structure

2.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Bonding Capacity

2.1.1.3 Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan

2.1.1.4 Subfactor 4: Seed Task Order

2.1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

2.1.3 Factor 3: Price

2.2 Technical Factor: The term "technical" as used herein, refers to non-price factors. More than one technical factor is used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror's proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirement. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described in the Technical Ratings table below for each subfactor. An overall technical rating will not be assigned. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, awardable. 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.

Technical Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1 Subfactor 1 – Management/Organizational Structure

A. Offeror must provide an organizational chart identifying key personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope to those expected under this SABER IDIQ.

Additionally, the offeror must provide a narrative describing the organization’s program management policies, procedures, and processes. The offeror shall provide a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP) developed specifically for managing the Dyess SABER program. The PMP shall discuss the management approach used for design, site clearing and demolition, construction, completion/turn-over of project, and overall management. The information in the PMP shall make it clear that the offeror has the ability to deliver a quality product and effectively manage the designers, consultants, and subcontractors on the team, as well as the ability to coordinate all work throughout the simplified design and construction phases. The PMP shall include an explanation of the total project team management approach for the construction team as well as a résumé for the Project Manager. Please list any relevant experience or certifications the Project Manager possesses that will help the Government determine their ability to oversee projects under the SABER contract. The offeror must provide design/documentation for the overall SABER IDIQ provided in Attachment 1.

B. Measure of Merit: The offeror must meet all identified technical criteria and not pose technical risk of failure. This requirement is met when the offeror provides:

(1) A block diagram identifying the individuals (management and supervisors) associated with this requirement to include:

(i) Key personnel: Each individual’s name, title, duty, years of experience and experience level relating to similar contracts in size and scope. At a minimum, the offeror shall provide information for the following disciplines:

a) Project Manager (minimum of 5 years experience)

b) Site Superintendent (minimum of 3 years experience)

c) Quality Assurance Manager/ Foreman (minimum of 2 years experience)

d) Safety Manager (minimum of 1 year experience)

(ii) A description of the organization’s project management policies and procedures to include project planning approach (inclusive of the design/technical documentation for the seed project, Attachment 7), the process for information flow, reporting, and the policies and procedures for coordinating and executing multiple simultaneous construction projects.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2 – Bonding Capacity

A. Description: Offeror shall provide evidence it is able to obtain the maximum single award/task order performance and payment bonding capacity of $1M and a minimum multiple project aggregate bonding capacity of $5M per year.

B. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides bonding capacity documents that meet the aggregate and project amounts, backed by a bonding surety with a best company rating of ‘A’. The document must also include the surety company’s name, address, phone number, and points of contact.

2.2.3 Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan

A. Offeror shall provide a draft Quality Control Plan (QCP). The plan shall identify personnel, procedures, control, instructions, test, records, and forms to be used. The plan shall describe the offeror’s approach to detection and resolution of problems with the actual work in sufficient detail to evaluate the frequency and quality of Contractor inspections and how progress shall be measured. After contract award is finalized, the formal detailed Quality Control Plan shall be required from the apparent awardee no later than twenty (20) calendar days after the award of the contract for approval IAW the Statement of Objectives.

B. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides the following:

(i) A description of the contractor’s quality control processes and procedures, including a chart showing lines of authority. The QCP Manager shall report to the project manager or someone higher in the organization. The project manager in this context shall mean the individual with responsibility for the overall management of the project including quality and production.

2.2.4 Subfactor 4 – Seed Project

A. Description: The seed task order will be used to determine technical acceptability for awarding the SABER contract. The scope of the seed task order is intended to be a representative sample of the work to be performed under the basic SABER contract. The project is to Renovate Bldg 5201 on Dyess AFB. Identify the major milestones that make-up the seed project’s critical path providing a detailed approach from requirements documents to construction completion within the period of performance of 250 days. The milestones will be identified as preliminary dates and also defined in terms of the number of calendar days from one milestone to the next. Identify the significant risks that may hinder progression along the critical path. The plan shall provide a detailed approach for cradle to grave completion of the seed project. The narrative shall identify how work will transition from one area to the next, and the customer-oriented approach for ensuring customer expectations and goals are met or exceeded throughout construction phases.

The Offeror must provide design/documentation for the seed project provided in Attachment 7 – Seed Project Bldg 5201.

B. Measure of Merit: The offeror must meet all identified technical criteria stated below:

(i) Work Performance Plan – Provide a comprehensive Work Performance Plan (to include, but not limited to: material submittals, testing, policies, procedures, records, forms, surge management, and processes to be used).

(ii) The offeror provides an equipment list to accomplish the work, including a thorough explanation of all equipment proposed to perform the work.

(iii) The offeror successfully demonstrates a realistic schedule that demonstrates an approach and understanding of the required activities to execute the project. The schedule successfully defines the project’s critical path, provides a description of all work, and sequencing activities required to complete each phase within 250 calendar days. This will be demonstrated by including a Gantt chart showing all activities and the critical path.

(iv) The offeror provides a price proposal that includes the proposed CLINS with pricing (based on proposed coefficients) and quantities applicable for executing the project through the usage of RS Means (Unburdened) Cost Database estimating software. The proposed CLINs will be evaluated for technical acceptability.

2.3 Past Performance Factor: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.3.1 Ratings. Each offeror will receive a single integrated performance confidence assessment. This integration may include the recent and relevant present/past performance of the Prime offeror and Joint Ventures. An offeror’s overall confidence assessment will be impacted by past performance findings to include the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity of the offeror’s team. More recent performance or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the SABER IDIQ, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror performance and the resulting confidence level for work under this requirement. Each offeror will receive one of the performance confidence rating as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, listed in the table below.

Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival 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.

2.3.2 The Government will consider and evaluate offeror's past performance information, to include the Relevant Contracts (Attachment 10), PPQs (Attachment 8), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government will assess if past performance is deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP. Recent and Relevant is defined in the subparagraph below:

2.3.3 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.4 Relevancy: Submit up to five (5) most recent contracts on Attachment 10, that are considered most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Recent past performance is defined as any relevant work completed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Also, include information up to three (3) recent contracts performed by each of your teaming partners, Joint Ventures, and/or significant subcontractors that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. Past Performance information on recent contracts performed by teaming partners and significant subcontractors may be included however the prime contractor’s past performance will be weighted as significantly more important than that of subcontractors. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. Offerors must also demonstrate the ability to successfully complete three or more active contracts simultaneously. Examples include, but are not limited to, Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER), Job Order Contracts (JOC), Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACC), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC), or simply evidence of simultaneous work completed on schedule. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Section M of the solicitation, Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures)

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.

Note: In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s 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.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. Only a proposal deemed technically acceptable, pricing determined to be fair and reasonable, and a past performance assessment rating of substantial confidence will be considered for award.

2.4 Price Factor: Offerors who’s price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

2.4.1 The Government will evaluate the proposed price for the seed project, Attachment 3, Excel SABER Pricing, in order to determine which offerors’ total price represents the best value to the Government. The Contracting Officer will use price competition and/or the Government’s estimate to determine whether or not the offeror’s pricing is fair and reasonable in addition to other methods required in FAR 15.404.

Priced Coefficients Factor. After determining technical acceptability, the offeror’s coefficient pricing schedule will be evaluated, based upon the total coefficient proposed for base award coefficients and all options. The Government will evaluate the proposed pricing schedule coefficients in order to determine which offerors’ total coefficient represents the best value to the Government. The Contracting Officer will use price competition and other applicable technique deemed appropriate IAW FAR 15.404-1 to determine whether or not an offeror's pricing is fair and reasonable as well as balanced across all option years.

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

2.4.2. Funding for the initial project is not presently available. The Government is not obiligated to award the project at any time. The Government will award a minimum guarantee of $500.00 to the awardee for attending a face to face post-award briefing. However, offerors are required to guarantee pricing for the seed project for 180 days.

2.4.3 The pricing schedules provided will be filled out by the offeror for evaluation purposes. The following chart indicates each coefficient established for price evaluation:

Description Base Coefficient Option 1 Coefficient

Option 2 Coefficient

Option 3 Coefficient

SABER Task Orders between $250K and $500K, Standard work hours, in a non-secure area SABER Task Orders above $500K, Standard work hours, in a non-secure area SABER Task Orders between $250K and $500K, Standard work hours, work in a secure area SABER Task Orders above $500K, Standard work hours, work in a secure area SABER Task Orders between $250K and $500K, Non-Standard work hours, in a non-secure area SABER Task Orders above $500K, Non-Standard work hours, in a non-secure area SABER Task Orders between $250K and $500K, Non-Standard work hours, in a secure area SABER Task Orders above $500K, Non-Standard work hours, in a secure area

The evaluation of the breakdown will document for the offers evaluated, the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed coefficients. Prices will also be evaluated to determine the offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements as expressed by the award.

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 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.