Attachment 8 - Section M - Evaluation Factors.pdf

P a g e | 1

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M.1.1 This acquisition will utilize a Best Value Tradeoff process in accordance with Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) Part 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services), in conjunction with the procedures of RFO Part 36 (Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts) and the principles of RFO Part 15. The Government intends to award between three (3) and five (5) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts to the responsible offerors whose proposals represent the best overall value to the Government.

M.1.2 The Government reserves the right to award less than three or more than five initial contracts if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the best interest of the Government. Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to on-ramp additional contractors at a later date, who will be evaluated using the same factors and basis of award described herein.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.2.1 Proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) factors:

• Factor 1: Technical Capability

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

M.3 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION

M.3.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Technical Volume to determine if it meets the minimum requirements outlined in Section L. The evaluation will result in a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. A proposal must be rated "Acceptable" in all three subfactors to be eligible for award.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

P a g e | 2

M.3.2 Subfactor 1 (Diverse Material Competency): Evaluated as Acceptable if the narrative clearly demonstrates experience and methodology for installing VCT, LVT, Carpet, Ceramic, and Resinous/Epoxy systems in accordance with the industry standards cited in Section L.

M.3.3 Subfactor 2 (Mock Seed Project Execution Plan): Evaluated as Acceptable if the proposed Period of Performance (PoP) is realistic and advantageous to the Government for the scope of work, the work plan provides a logical sequence of phases that substantiates the proposed PoP, the narrative outlines a specific process for investigating and assessing existing sub-floor conditions post-demolition, and identifies at least two actionable risk mitigation steps. Proposals offering an unreasonably long or factually impossible PoP may be rated Unacceptable.

M.3.4 Subfactor 3 (Key Personnel): Evaluated as Acceptable if the narrative identifies a Project Manager and Site Superintendent and clearly explains how their experience qualifies them to execute the Mock Seed Project and manage concurrent task orders.

M.4 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

M.4.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance to assess the level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of this MACC. Past performance record history will be assessed as one of the multiple standards required for a successful quote to be determined responsible as described in RFO 9.104. Past performance can be evaluated based upon the contracting officer’s knowledge of a previous experience with the service being acquired, customer surveys, past performance questionnaires and government-wide contract performance assessments rating system (CPARS).

M.5 FACTOR 3: PRICE EVALUATION

M.5.1 The Government will evaluate the Price Proposal for reasonableness, completeness, and unbalanced pricing. The evaluation will be based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculated in the offeror's submitted "Attachment 9 - Pricing Schedule."

M.5.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP is defined as the sum of the following, as calculated on the "Summary" tab of Attachment 9:

M.5.2.1 The total extended price for the Base Year 1 Bid Schedule.

M.5.2.2 The total extended price for the Base Year 2 Bid Schedule.

M.5.2.3 The total extended price for the Base Year 3 Bid Schedule.

M.5.2.4 The total extended price for the Option Year 1 Bid Schedule.

P a g e | 3

M.5.2.5 The total extended price for the Option Year 2 Bid Schedule.

M.5.2.6 The total firm-fixed-price proposed for the Mock Seed Project.

M.5.2.7 The extended prices for the annual bid schedules are calculated using Government-provided estimated quantities for evaluation purposes only.

M.5.3 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze the prices submitted on each of the five annual tabs to assess for unbalanced pricing. Significant, unsubstantiated price variances between years for the same line item may be grounds for determining a proposal unacceptable. The Government may also reject a proposal if it determines that the pricing structure poses an unacceptable risk.

M.6 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION REVIEW

M.6.1 Volume IV (Contract Documentation) will not be adjectivally rated. The Government will review the submitted Standard Form 1442, Representations and Certifications, and Financial Responsibility Letters to ensure compliance with solicitation instructions and to assist in the affirmative determination of responsibility required by RFO Part 9 prior to award. Failure to submit required contract documentation may render an offeror ineligible for award.