Attachment 9_ Section M.pdf

REPAIR COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER FA6633-22-R-0001

Attachment 9

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) PROCESS

WITH PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABILITY

I. Basis for Contract Award:

A. Source Selection Methodology: This is a competitive, best value source selection for the Repair of Vehicle Inspection Facility. This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 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. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror's proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable past performance, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph II below.

Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

A. General

1. 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. The Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Each offeror's completed RFP, in accordance with section L-3 of the solicitation, will be evaluated to ensure Section K and Section L fill-ins are properly completed and to verify the offer is valid for 60 days from the closing date of the solicitation.

2. Each offeror's completed RFP will be evaluated to ensure Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) issues are identified or a negative response has been provided.

1. Failure to comply with the requirements in Section L, Volume I will be considered non-responsive and may not be evaluated or considered eligible for award.

C. Volume II, Price

1. Offeror’s price proposal will be used to evaluate adequate and accurate lowest pricing that will be fair and reasonable consideration.

2. Pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness and lowest.

3. Reasonableness. The Offeror’s price proposal will further be evaluated to determine whether the prices the Government expects to pay are fair and reasonable pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b).

(a) Reasonableness: The anticipated contract type for this requirement is firm-fixed priced, price realism is not required. However, each offeror’s total evaluated price will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness. Pricing will be considered acceptable if the total evaluated price is reasonable, when compared to market prices, and complete.

The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(b) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(c) Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price (or for FPI contracts the maximum contract Government liability) to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the agreement as well as a comparison between the total price (or proposed maximum contract Government liability) and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Technical

1. General: Each offeror's written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) and drawing package and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor 1: Qualifications and prior experience identifying at least three (3) years’ experience of related work: retrofit projects and specifically Monaco fire alarm & mass notification, and J2 Innovations Fin Stack direct digital controls. Provide valid training documentation for at least one expected Monaco installer and documented J2 Innovations Fin Stack software integration with an existing central control system.

Subfactor 2: Preliminary schedule shall outline general tasks that meet the period of performance in calendar days. Indicate major milestones and expected construction periods for Phase I and Phase II.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirement. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an "acceptable" rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

E. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror's/joint venture members' ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform requirements valued at 25% or more of an offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will evaluate the offeror's/joint venture members demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active efforts at least 50% complete or completed efforts performed in the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past

Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented.

The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement..

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent five (5) PPI efforts submitted. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in Volume IV of the Offeror's proposal.

• RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the following ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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 is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror's/joint venture members' or teaming/partnering (and critical subcontractor's, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the five (5) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture, team/partnering member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service- disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.