Attachment 9 - Section M Rev 1 - W15QKN-25-R-A030.pdf

Solicitation No. W15QKN-25-R-A030, Job Ordering Contract (JOC)- Region B 06 March 2025

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104)

1. Basis for Award (Section M)

a. The award(s) will be made to the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) proposal(s). Proposals will be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability but will not be ranked using these non-price Factors. In order for an Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price Factor (Technical Approach Factor/Areas of Consideration and Past Performance). There are three Areas of Consideration under Technical: Seed Project Acceptability (an awardable sample task); Management Plan; and Bonding Capacity. These Technical Areas of Consideration are not sub factors and are not separately weighted. An offeror must receive an Acceptable rating under each technical area of consideration in order to receive an overall Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor. A proposal receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” in any non-price Factor will not be eligible for award.

b. The Government intends to make multiple awards, not to exceed nine as a result of this

Request for Proposal (RFP). In the event that more than one award is made, subsequent task orders will be initiated through letters of contemplation and shall be competed utilizing best value techniques (LPTA or Trade Offs), which shall be outlined in solicitation W15QKN-25-R-A030 and in accordance with Fair Opportunity as prescribed in FAR 16.505(b)(1). The Government reserves the right to award a sole source order if the conditions at FAR 16.505(b)(2) exist.

c. Each responsive Offeror will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria to determine whether the Offeror has the technical expertise, knowledge and experience to perform the work outlined in the SOW. The Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for all the non-price Factors. In order to be considered for award, there must be an Acceptable rating in every non-price Factor.

d. Trade-offs between price and non-price factors are not permitted. An unbalanced or incomplete price proposal may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques.

Proposed prices evaluated as unreasonable may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

e. The contractor must submit their best offer for the Seed project (Technical/Area of Consideration) with their initial proposal. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award the Seed project to one of the schedule awardees based on Best Value (LPTA) criteria to fulfill the Government’s guaranteed minimum of $25,000.00 for one Offeror. If multiple IDIQ contract awards are made, each additional awardee, excluding the Offeror that is awarded the Seed Project, will be provided an initial sole source task order to propose to in order to fulfill the Government’s guaranteed minimum of $25,000.00 for each awardee.

f. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions (except for clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary and in the best interest of the Government.

g. Minimum Acceptability: If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

2. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

a. The Government will evaluate each proposal and the SSA will assess the results of the following 3 Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Area of Consideration 1 – Seed Project Acceptability Area of Consideration 2 – Management Plan Area of Consideration 3 – Bonding Capacity Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

NOTE: Areas of Consideration are not sub-factors and will not be separately weighted. Each Area of Consideration must be determined to be Acceptable in order for an Offeror to receive an Acceptable rating for the overall Technical Approach Factor.

3. EVALUATION APPROACH

Factor 1 – Technical Capability Factor Ratings: The evaluation will result in a single rating. A rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned to the offeror’s technical capability submission.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

a. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH:

(1). Area of Consideration 1 - Seed Project Acceptability: The Government will evaluate the technical proposal on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Technical Approach provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements based upon their response to the awardable sample task entitled “Seed project”. The evaluation will focus on the proposal submitted in response to the Seed project Statement of Work (SOW), found at attachment #6 of the solicitation. and evidence of bonding capability of up to $8,000,000.00.

(a) The Government will evaluate the Seed Project’s Technical approach and knowledge of the requirement in meeting the Statement of Work. This includes, but is not limited to, assumptions made, overall performance time, construction phases, necessary management and trade disciplines to complete the project, and any major subcontractors and their involvement throughout the process.

(b) To receive an acceptable rating, the offerors must demonstrate the ability to complete all of the below SOW requirements for the Seed project:

a. Line-Item Breakdown: The breakdown of line items proposed from the Unit Price Book (UPB) (Means Cost Data book or software) (ATTACHMENT #2) referenced in the solicitation along with the quantities of each line item necessary will be evaluated to determine if the requirements of the Seed project SOW and attachments can be successfully completed.

b. Rationale: The short narrative supporting the reasoning and/or benefits of the selected line items will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s knowledge and ability to meet the requirements of the Seed project SOW and attachments.

(c) Non-Pre-priced Items: The explanation and breakdown of costs for any non-pre-priced items included in the technical (Seed project) proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s knowledge and ability to meet the requirements of the Seed project SOW and attachments.

(d) Period of Performance: The proposed number of days required to complete the work will be evaluated to determine the offer’s knowledge and ability to meet the requirements of the Seed project SOW and attachments.

(2) Area of Consideration 2 – Management Plan:

(a) The Government will evaluate the submitted Management Plan for successful execution of the contract.

(b) The Government will evaluate each Management Plan as to its capability and capacity to develop and maintain a subcontractor base and demonstrate a prompt subcontractor payment plan, including timelines from the time the subcontractor submits his invoice until final payment.

The Government will evaluate the ability to manage and integrate subcontractors into their organization. The Government will review the working relationship between the prime and their subcontractors at the corporate level and site level and how they will ensure adequate oversight of subcontractors when subcontractors are performing the work, to include performance monitoring and timely resolution of any issues that may arise. The Government will require the PRIME contractor provide licensing for each state within Region B. The Government will review the licensing of both the PRIME and subcontractors that will be associated with this contract to ensure properly licensed for each skillset, i.e. HVAC.

(c) The Government will evaluate each offeror’s Management Plan on how the Contractor’s own workforce, and the required percentage (at a minimum at least 15% at all times) of “in house” work performance, in accordance with FAR 52.219-14, will be integrated into the JOC program.

The Government will evaluate how the efforts of this workforce will (or will not) integrate with subcontractor efforts. The Government will evaluate the capability to meet, sustain, and grow the workforce, including skilled craft labor, required to successfully perform the JOC requirements. The Government will evaluate how the Contractor will ramp up to support task orders that will be completed, particularly during busier times, such as the end of the fiscal year (July - September) or when subcontractors are unable to perform. The Government will evaluate the Management Plan division of authority, if any, between the home /corporate office and the site office and the Offeror’s plan for daily and strategic management of resources. The Government will evaluate how the PRIME Contractor will meet the requirements to access the location or project for attendance at all site visits, pre-construction meetings, status meetings and close out meetings and how the PRIME contractor will meet the requirement to be called to the site for an immediate issue within a 7 hour response time to all locations within the Region B district.

(d) The Government will evaluate how Offeror(s) demonstrate their understanding of events that must be considered in the schedule associated with, but not limited to, proposal preparation, submittals, work performance, inspections, and closeout. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s scheduling technique and project planning methodology. The Government will evaluate the Management Plan its capability and capacity to propose on numerous task orders simultaneously and also perform the subsequent awards in accordance with the negotiated completion dates. Typically, the majority of the projects are issued in the last quarter of the fiscal year with limited response time and resources.

(3) Area of Consideration 3 - Bonding Capacity:

a. Government shall evaluate bonding capacity which shows that the Offeror has the capability to obtain a minimum available bonding capacity of $8,000,000.00 from a Securities or Bonding Company and must be submitted with Technical Proposal.

4. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor Ratings: The evaluation will result in a single rating. A rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned to the Offeror’s past performance submission.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

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 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 past performance. In the context of Acceptability/Unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.” Additionally, an unacceptable past performance rating will be considered as any information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from informal rating systems such as Past Performance Information Retrieval Systems (PPIRS”) or Federal Performance and Integrity Information Systems. (FAPIIS).

a. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or similar systems and commercial sources. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offerors past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the Offeror. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received giving consideration to only recent and relevant past performance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

b. The Offeror and its major/key subcontractors (teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners) will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on this contract. Offerors shall submit past performance information on all Major/key subcontractors (teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners) proposed to be performing more than 15% of the total evaluated price.

c. For the purpose of evaluating proposals, “recent” is defined as occurring within the following time standards: 1) occurring within the past three years of the date of issuance of the solicitation, or 2) awarded earlier than three years ago from date of issuance of the solicitation, but for which deliveries occurred or were scheduled to occur within three years of issuance of the solicitation. However, the Government may evaluate any performance in the period subsequent from the closing date, but prior to the date of award. Relevant is defined as an effort similar in nature, work, magnitude (between $50,000.00 and $250,000.00) in total value for individual tasks orders or Definitive Contracts). complexity and scope.

d. Based on the Offeror’s previous and current experience and performance on same or similar items (maximum three years) including the frequency of cost growths and schedule delays, the Government will assess those risks associated with the Offeror’s past performance. The Government will focus its inquiry of the Offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, and quality of services. This evaluation will encompass all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the Offeror’s detailed record of 1) performance such as quality, timeliness of performance, effectiveness of management, to include cost management and (2) commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for customer’s interest.

5. FACTOR 3: PRICE

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposal for the Sample Awardable Task Order for the Seed Project The contractor shall submit the price proposal for the sample awardable task order on the contractor cost breakdown sheet, Attachment No. 2 to determine adequate skill sets, materials and other direct costs. The Government will evaluate the total proposed price and review each coefficient for unbalanced pricing. The Government will review each coefficient for normal working hours, a coefficient for other than normal working hours, and a rate for overhead and profit for non-pre-priced items.

b. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.403 and to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in the FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate.

c. Total evaluated price is to be determined by adding the total evaluated price for all areas in accordance with Attachment 7 pricing workbook. The Government will evaluate Attachment 7 of the solicitation and the proposed coefficient for normal working hours, a coefficient for other than normal working hours and a rate for overhead and profit for non-pre-priced items for all areas in the Section 00 10 00 of the solicitation. The evaluated price will be determined by applying the co-efficient/formulas listed against the notional target ceiling as outlined on Attachment 7, which are notional target figures per each area for evaluation purposes. The identified notional figures will be computed for Normal Working Hours, Other than Normal Work Hours, and non-pre-priced items by adding the results of the three (3) descriptive calculations for each ordering period. The offeror shall limit the coefficients to two decimal places. The offeror shall propose coefficients for each of the five (5) ordering periods.

d. Prices proposed in Attachment 7 of the solicitation will be utilized in the performance of a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). However, if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, a cost analysis may be performed per FAR 15.404-1(c).

e. Unbalanced Pricing. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing utilizing cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced. In accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6. DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY:

a. For small businesses, a Certificate of Competency may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 19.6.

b. Pre-award Survey may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 9.106.

c. For actions over $10M, a Pre-award Clearance by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will be required in accordance with FAR 22.805(a).