Attachment 8 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Attachment 8 - Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award 28 May 2025 Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award.

This is a competitive Best Value Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Best Value technique chosen for this acquisition will be a Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the past performance confidence rating of the higher price offeror determined Technically Acceptable outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. To be considered for award, an offeror must:

1. Meet the Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, and conform to all solicitation terms and conditions in compliance with Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors or Respondents.

2. Receive an overall “Acceptable” technical rating.

3. Receive a Past Performance Confidence Rating of “Substantial”

“Satisfactory” or “Neutral”.

4. Have a complete, fair and reasonable price and

5. Be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1.

A single RFP will be issued with the anticipation of awarding a Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) IDIQ contract with approximately five (5) active contracts. 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. 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 five (5) MACC contract holders, who will compete for future requirements via individual task orders.

From the pool of MACC awardees, a Task Order award for the SEED project will be made to the lowest priced offeror whose prices are determined to be fair and reasonable, and the offeror is determined to be responsible in accordance with the standards prescribed by FAR 9.104-1.

The remaining four (4) IDIQ contract holders who do not receive the SEED Task Order, will receive a one-time Task Order award in the amount of $1,000.00 for the post award conference, which will satisfy the contract minimum amount.

1.2 Discussions.

IAW FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Technical, Past Performance or Price Proposal. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will NOT constitute discussion, and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal. In addition, the Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such an action is in the Government’s best interest. 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. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated at the time discussions are closed, 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.

The following evaluation factors 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 described below.

Factor 1: Technical; Execution of SEED Project Subfactor 1: Project Narrative, Schedule, and Cost Estimate Subfactor 2: Management Approach: Management Plan and Qualifications Subfactor 3: Geographical Area – Emergency Response Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.0 Evaluation Process

Step 1 - The Government will assume that each proposal is complete and in accordance with Sections L and M and will initially rank the proposals from the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to highest TEP. The TEP will be utilized to establish the evaluation order only. The offeror’s proposed price for the SEED project, will be utilized for the TEP. The Government will evaluate the five (5) lowest proposals under Factor 1 for Technical Acceptability.

Step 2 - If any of the five (5) lowest proposals are found to have Unacceptable Technical rating under Factor 1, then the Government will review the next lowest proposal until five (5) lowest proposals are found to have Acceptable Technical rating under Factor 1 OR all offers have been evaluated.

Step 3 - After the five (5) lowest proposals that are found to have Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 will be evaluated for Factor 2 past performance. The purpose of the past performance factor is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to provide services that meet users' needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the offeror performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an offeror's ability to perform work under this agreement successfully.

Step 4 - If the five (5) lowest TEP proposals with Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 and are found to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment under Factor 2, these proposals represent the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Awards shall be made to those Offerors without further consideration of any other Offerors.

Step 5 - If any of the five (5) lowest TEP proposals with Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1 does not receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating under Factor 2, then the Government will start at Step 1 until five (5) proposals have been found to have Acceptable Technical Experience under Factor 1, and have been found to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment under Factor 2, OR all offers have been evaluated.

Step 6 - If, after all offers have been evaluated, fewer than 5 proposals have been evaluated as “technically acceptable” and “Substantial Confidence” then the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision by determining if the best value to select proposals until 5 proposals are selected.

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 a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating.

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

The five (5) highest ranked Offerors will be considered in the active pool. Those in the active pool will be awarded an IDIQ and the minimum task order will be issued to support a kickoff meeting.

As mentioned above, the Government reserves the right to award less than five (5) active contracts.

Step 7 - 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 Award for the SEED Project Replace two (2) CRAC Units in Server Room, B90131

- Once the active awardee pool is established, the Lowest Priced Offeror will be selected to execute the SEED project. All others within the active awardee pool will receive the minimum SEED amount for attending an organized kick-off meeting.

The offered price must be determined fair and reasonable, and the offeror must be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1. If such proposal is found, then the SSA may determine that the proposal represents the Best Value and direct award be made to the offeror without evaluating higher priced proposals or conducting discussions with previously evaluated, lower priced offerors. With the evaluation process described above, the offerors are reminded that it is imperative that providing their best offer in their initial proposals in terms of the accurate/reasonable construction cost estimate under the Technical volume and reasonable/realistic unit and extended costs in Section B of the SF 1442.

EVALUATION FACTORS.

The following evaluation factors 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 described below.

Factor 1: Technical; Execution of SEED Project Subfactor 1: Project Narrative, Schedule, and Cost Estimate Subfactor 2: Management Approach: Management Plan and Qualifications Subfactor 3: Geographical Area Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1 Relative Importance of Factors. This is a competitive, Best Value Tradeoff source selection where the Past Performance factor is considered significantly more important to the Price factor for proposals rated "Acceptable" under the Technical factor. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and past performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror being determined technically unacceptable.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS.

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution to meeting the Government requirement and assessment of the technical risk which considers the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance and need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the sanitized technical proposals, assigning a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable". The offerors proposal shall be evaluated utilizing the three (3) subfactors. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a reasonable and complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in Section L of this solicitation. Any subfactor 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 establishing a competitive range or conduction discussions.

Technical Rating Adjectival Rating Description ACCEPTABLE Proposals meets the requirements of the solicitation UNACCEPTABLE Proposals does NOT meet the requirements of the solicitation

3.1 Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors

3.1.1 SUBFACTOR 1: Execution of HVAC MACC SEED project:

Using the provided specifications and drawings, the offeror must have provided a project schedule and narrative that effectively and sufficiently summarizes, explains, and documents the preliminary design to address the offeror’s technical approach and critical path. Included the following elements: mechanical, electrical, plumbing system controls, architectural and finishes.

Narrative clearly illustrated compliance with local, state, and federal building and construction codes, industry standards and base specifications.

The progress schedule and supporting narrative will be evaluated on how well the offeror clearly and logically details baseline construction schedule, demonstrating full understanding of specific work elements, a realistic schedule of values for each element and proper work sequencing that is within the allotted performance period. The Schedule shall include at a minimum, Identification of separate work elements, Order of work elements to include project phasing, if needed, Number of days for each work element, Identification of work elements in the critical path, Identification of long lead time materials, mobilization, construction start date major construction milestones, completion date, utility outages, major equipment deliveries, and installation, tests, system start-up, major equipment commissioning, system TAB, pre-final inspections, final inspection and delivery of project closeout documents. The submitted schedule must be developed using project scheduling software such as MS Project, Primavera, or any other comparable form. Offerors should only include the work elements necessary to complete the required work. The schedule shall reflect a 173-day performance period.

Price Proposal for SEED Project, Replace - Upgrade Two CRAC Units in Server Room B90131:

The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal shall fully and clearly demonstrate reasonableness, balanced pricing, as well as document the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be the sum total of all Firm-Fixed Priced CLIN(s) and options (if applicable).

Fifty (50) Division Cost Estimate (DCE) Worksheet (Attachment 4g): Offerors shall provide a price breakdown for the project utilizing the 50 Division Cost Estimate (DCE) Worksheet for each proposed work division as well as a summary page. Use and submit the 50 Division Cost Estimate (DCE) Worksheet to build your proposal. The Contractor shall provide explanation and direct reference to applicable requirement document(s). Input the work elements by specification division and provide pricing for those work elements within each division sheet. Offer will be complete, accurate, and sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirement, including providing sufficient details in the Division Cost Worksheet. DCE shall identify work elements within each division and are sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the included quantities for major equipment, materials, labor and other services are not significantly overstated or understated. Accuracy and reasonableness will take into consideration the selection of line items and proposed quantities of each line item. 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. Offerors should not utilize lump sum or total pricing when pricing each specification division. Failure to break out major work elements within a specification division may result in an unfavorable evaluation. If utilizing lump sum or total pricing when pricing the specific division, Offerors should provide rationale on why the price cannot be broken out. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed pricing rests with the Offeror.

3.1.2 SUBFACTOR 2: Management Plan and Qualifications.

Management Plan: The offeror’s overall management plan/approach will be evaluated on its organization, coordination, development, and monitoring, and control of the construction processes. The Government source selection team will review the Management Plan and Qualifications to determine whether sufficient information is provided to describe interface with home/site office, subcontractors operations, and construction teams; interface and partnering with Government project managers, contracting officials, inspectors and users; and methods and criteria used to screen and select quality subcontractors and design consultants to ensure an appropriate level of experience and expertise for the job. The Management Plan must ensure the requirements of the specifications and Section L are met at a minimum. The submitted plan shall effectively include, but is not limited to, the following components:

- Levels of management

- Supervisory experience

- Personnel authority

- Offeror’s ability to furnish manpower and equipment necessary to perform and manage multiple disciplines of this requirement

- Material purchasing system and capabilities

- Process and procedures for warranty/maintenance support, unforeseen site conditions and design errors.

- Interface with home/site office, subcontractor ops, and construction teams

- Include an organizational chart with names of assigned personnel and proposed subcontractors and their areas of responsibility for each portion

Complete key personnel organizational chart with a supporting narrative identifying precise lines of authority and responsibilities, including qualifications, certifications and duties of each person assigned to key functions IAW the HVAC MACC IDIQ and SEED Specification. Points of Contacts (POC) identified for each activity element and main project POC.

Narrative, or other effective means, detailing procedures for Quality Control (QC), scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals. Describe managing and inspecting site work during the construction process. Describe how warranty/maintenance support, unforeseen site conditions, design errors, etc. will be handled.

Qualifications: The Source Selection Team will evaluate the contractor’s proposed key personnel who will be involved in the day-to-day accomplishment of this contract including, as a minimum, personnel qualified in the areas identified below. The Source Selection Team will evaluate this subfactor to determine if the qualifications of proposed personnel meet the identified minimum requirements, certifications, and licenses required for personnel performing activities or acting in the specific capacity.

-Program/Project Manager (PM): The contractor’s Program/Project Manager shall have capabilities to perform duties identified in the SEED Specifications AND have as a minimum, a bachelor’s degree from a regionally or nationally accredited university and at least five (5) years’ experience managing construction projects which shall include two (2) years of industrial construction.

-Superintendent: The contractor shall identify a minimum of two (2) Superintendents with capabilities to perform duties identified in the SEED Specifications, each with a minimum of five (5) years’ experience in construction which shall include two (2) years of industrial construction, and two (2) years’ experience as a project Superintendent or Foreman managing.

Must demonstrate requirements of EM 385-1-1 and have experience in the areas of hazard identification and safety compliance, to include successful completion of OSHA 10-hour Training Course within the past 3 years.

- Quality Control (QC) Manager: The contractor shall have a QC Manager with capabilities to perform duties identified in the SEED Specifications, with a minimum of three (3) years’ experience in construction which shall include two (2) years of industrial construction and shall have at least two (2) years of hands-on construction within the commercial / industrial HVAC and related fields.

- Home Office or Affiliated Office Location: In order to support the required emergency response time, an offeror must provide evidence of office within 300-mile radius of, Hurlburt Field, Fl 32544.

4.0. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR.

The Past Performance evaluation will result in an overall performance confidence assessment as defined below. This performance confidence assessment represents the Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated past and present performance. The performance confidence assessments are defined as follows:

TABLE 5 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

4.1 Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Section M, paragraph 1.1(a). In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) or other databases; interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

4.1.1 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 six (6) years from the issuance month of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.1.2 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical factors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference Section M, 1.1(a)). Consideration will be given to projects involving the type of construction and work elements described in the attached Specifications. Relevant past performance information must demonstrate construction experience involving the type of construction and work elements described in the attached Specifications, Section 01 11 00, and costs comparable to the project magnitude as specified in Block 10 for the SF 1442, Request for Proposal. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent contracts:

4.1.3 Quality of Performance. All recent past performance that is determined to be somewhat relevant, relevant, or very relevant will be reviewed to determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and the usefulness of the performance. This information will be used by the evaluation team in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating.

4.1.4 Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown 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.

4.1.5 If a Teaming Agreement is submitted as part of the proposal as outlined in Section L para 4.2, each teaming offeror’s past performance will be evaluated separately using the same evaluation methods described above. The Prime Contractor’s past performance will be weighted slightly more than equal based on their overall responsibility for contract management. The separate ratings of each party in the Teaming Agreement will be combined to determine an aggregate PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CONFIDENCE RATING as defined in Section M.

4.1.6 If an offer is submitted as a Joint Venture under a Mentor-Protégé program as outline in

Section L para 4.3, the Government will evaluate past performance for each partner to the Joint Venture individually as well as past performance accomplished by the Joint Venture itself. The separate ratings of each party in the Joint Venture will be combined to determine an aggregate PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CONFIDENCE RATING as defined in Section M

5.0 COST OR PRICE FACTOR.

Offers shall be ranked according to price, to include option prices. Each offeror’s price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Unrealistically low proposed costs/prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that either the offeror does not understand the requirement, or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal. The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404, to include reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed.

6.0 CLARIFICATIONS, DISCUSSIONS, AND NEGOTIATIONS.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offerors initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, relevance of past performance information).

Communications (Clarifications) 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. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Discussions or negotiations may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range. Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron, 350 Tully Street, Hurlburt Field, FL, 32544.

7.0 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY.

Once the apparent successful offeror is selected the Government will evaluate the offeror’s financial capabilities and the specified criteria at FAR 9.104. Solicitation attachment 5, Financial Reference Worksheet will be forwarded to the financial institution, and a determination will be made regarding the apparent successful offerors financial capabilities and overall contractor responsibility using the specified criteria at FAR 9.104.

8.0 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.