Attachment 9- Solicitation Section M.pdf

Solicitation – Section M

M.1. SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1. Basis For Contract Award.

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with 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), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 01 Apr 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 25 May 2018. These regulations are available electronically at the https://www.acquisition.gov/.

M.1.1.1. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M.1.1.2. A complete and signed Preface and Completed Signed RFP (Volume I) IAW L.3.1.

M.1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ), contract for the performance of this Paving requirement, for a fixed period of 5 years total (1 base year, and 4 option years).

M.1.3. Discussions The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the procedures outlined in FAR 15.306 will be used.

M.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 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. The

Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

M.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND FACTORS

M.2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate proposals. The

Government will evaluate the first two lowest priced proposals for technical acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor I: Price

Factor II: Qualification Certifications

Subfactor 1: Historical Chamber of commerce documentation

Subfactor 2: SOA

Subfactor 3: Legal Standing

Subfactor 4: Financial Reports

Subfactor 5: Financial Standing

Factor III: Technical

Subfactor 1: Capability

Subfactor 2: Management Plan

Factor IV: Past Performance

M.2.2 Evaluation Process: The Government intends to award a single Paving IDIQ contract to the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal (to include all evaluation criteria:

responsiveness, technical, and past performance). The evaluation process will be conducted in the following steps. Proposals must meet the requirements of each step to advance to the next step in the evaluation process. If at any point in Steps 2 through 5 a proposal is eliminated from the competition, the Government will go back and evaluate the next lowest priced proposal so there are two proposals at the start of each step:

Step 1: RESPONSIVENESS: Offeror’s will be evaluated for responsiveness as defined in

L.1, L.2, L.3.1, and in accordance with M.1.1. An offeror determined to be non-responsive will be removed from competition and not considered for award.

Step 2: PRICE: For the purpose of conducting evaluations, the Government will first rank all proposals by Total Price (TP) from lowest to highest. Next, the price evaluation team will evaluate the two lowest (total) priced proposals (taken from the CCEB excel sheet), to determine completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness IAW M.3.1. The two lowest priced proposals (who are found to be complete, balanced, and reasonable) will move on to Step 3.

Step 3: QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATOINS: Offeror’s proposal volume II will be evaluated for acceptability as defined in M.3.2. An offeror with an Unacceptable rating for this step will be removed from competition and not considered for award.

The two lowest priced acceptable proposals to this point will move on to Step 4.

Step 4: TECHNICAL ACCEPTIBILITY: The Offeror’s sent from Step 3 will be evaluated for technical acceptability. The technical evaluation team will accomplish evaluations IAW M.3.3. An offeror with an Unacceptable rating for this step will be removed from competition and not considered for award. The two lowest priced acceptable proposals to this point will move on to Step 5.

Step 5: PAST PERFORMANCE: The offeror’s sent from step 4 will then be evaluated for past performance. Past performance Evaluations will begin with the lowest priced offeror. Only Acceptable Past Performance offers will advance to Step 5.

Step 6: CONTRACT AWARD: The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make the best value contract award to the offeror with the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable

(LPTA) proposal.

Table M.2.2 – Evaluation Process Rating Example

Offeror Responsiveness Price Price

Reasonableness

Qualification

Certifications Technical

Past

Performance

A Responsive $60 Reasonable Acceptable Unacceptable Not Evaluated

B Unresponsive $62 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

C Responsive $65 Reasonable Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable

D Responsive $70 Reasonable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

E Responsive $73 Reasonable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

F Responsive $76 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated

M.3. Evaluation Factors

M.3.1. Factor I: Price M.3.1.1. For the purpose of conducting evaluations, the Government, after checking each proposal for responsiveness in accordance with Step 1 listed above, will first rank all proposals by Total Price (TP) from lowest to highest. Total Price is the total from the completed CCEB excel sheet of all 5 years of the contract performance.

M.3.1.2. IAW M.2.2, the two lowest priced (and responsive) proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness and balanced pricing (Proposal Volume II) in accordance with

FAR 15.404-1.

M.3.1.3. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

1) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon reasonableness of the total price proposed for performance of the requirement.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, 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.

3) Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a comparison between the total price and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

M.3.2. Factor II: Qualification Certifications

The Government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the offeror’s qualification certification proposals (Proposal Volume III) on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below.

M.3.2.1. Subfactor 1: Historical Chamber of commerce documentation

Description: This subfactor is to ascertain contractor registration to local Chamber of Commerce and provide the issuing office with information regarding company's historical events.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal includes a copy of the

Historical Chamber of commerce documentation. The document's issuance date must not be older than 120 calendar days from the date of the offer.

M.3.2.2. Subfactor 2: SOA

Description: This subfactor evaluates offeror's Societa' Organismi di Attestazione (SOA) certification for category OG03 and OS26 and classification IV.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal provides a copy of a current

SOA certification for category OG03 and OS26 classification IV.

M.3.2.3. Subfactor 3: Legal Standing Description: This subfactor evaluates offerors capacity to comply with law requirements concerning payments and social insurance requirements.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a copy of the

“Documento Unico di Regolarita’ Contributiva (DURC)” for personnel (direct hire and/or self-employed/subcontractors). The document’s issuance date must not be older than 120 calendar days from the date of the offer.

M.3.2.4. Subfactor 4: Financial Reports

Description: This subfactor will assess the offeror’s capability in performing paving works prevailingly; appraisal is based on the combined evaluation of financial certified reports and statutory declarations.

Measure of merit: This standard is met when the offeror submits a copy of the last four (4) financial certificates reports (i.e. Bilancio d'esercizio) and statutory declarations related to each fiscal year proving that at least 75% of the offeror annual revenue was obtained through works performance under SOA category OG03 and OS26.

TABLE M.3.2 - QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

M.3.2.5. Subfactor 5: Financial Standing

Description: Written assurance from a Financial Institution (see Section H of the RFP, FAR

52.228-15 Performance and Payment Bonds-Construction). The bonds shall be in the form of a firm commitment supported by a registered and recognized financial institution and shall be in the amount of 10% of submitted price proposal". This rule applies to the entire proposed amount of the IDIQ. The offeror awarded the IDIQ will be required to secure a performance bond in accordance with far 52.228-15 therefore, written assurance from a financial institution that the offeror could secure such a bond at the time of proposal submission must be provided.

Measure of merit: This standard is met when the offeror submits a written assurance letter from a

Financial Institution for 10% of the submitted price proposal (CCEB excel sheet) with its proposal.

M.3.3. Factor III: Technical The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals (Proposal

Volume IV) using the combined technical/risk rating method shown in Table 1 below. The

Government will assign one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, un-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.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M.3.3.1. Subfactor 1: Capability: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proficiency to perform several works/projects simultaneously.

Measure of merit: This standard is met when the contractor submits three (3) relevant projects that meet the following minimum criteria:

1) Scope: three (3) projects are considered relevant/similar in scope to the paving required.

Projects submitted shall meet the following criteria:

a) Submit evidence of three (3) works performed simultaneously

b) Works were completed by time the solicitation is issued

c) At least one of the projects was airfield paving

d) The period of performance of each project must be minimum of 30 calendar days

e) Each work shall have a minimum value of 100,000.00 €

f) Simultaneous work performance of the three (3) projects shall be minimum of 30 consecutive calendar days.

g) Works were completed by the offeror as prime contractor

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

M.3.3.2. Subfactor 2: Management Plan

This subfactor will assess the offeror’s approach for high quality and highly efficient management structure and processes throughout the life the IDIQ period of performance.

Measure of merit: This standard is met when the offerors submits a chart (diagram) meeting the minimum criteria listed in section 1 below and submits an extended description of the topics listed in section 2 below:

1) Organizational staffing plan

a) Identification of contractor’s offices involved in the contract and each project execution

b) Identification of potential subcontractor’s offices involved in the contract and each project execution

c) Offices shall be identified by title, organization, physical collocation and number of components (nominally indicated whenever possible) assigned to each office

d) Identification of interactions between the offices to highlight: corresponding lines of authority, and communication procedures

e) Chart shall identify (nominally whenever possible), at least a Project Manager (PM) and an alternate Project Manager (PM); both shall be capable of proficiently communicate in the English language with the Government.

f) Chart shall identify a Quality Manager (QM) office; within the quality manager office chart shall detect names, qualifications, duties assigned to each person assigned to the

Quality Manager (QM) office. Chart shall, in addition, identify the lines of authorities and responsibility of each individual assigned the Quality Manager (QM) office.

g) Chart shall identify an administrative office capable of adequately manage and submit administrative documents (i.e. invoices and pass requests)

h) Chart shall identify (nominally whenever possible) a safety manager that will interact with the Safety Coordinator designated by the Government

2) Narrative description offeror shall provide a narrative description of the roles, responsibilities and key personnel authorities of the individuals/offices included in the organizational staffing plan described in section (1) above.

3) Procedures extended description

a) Policies and procedures for effective selection and management of qualified subcontractors

b) Material purchasing system and capabilities

c) Role of the design team in response to a task order; process and procedures for warranty support, unforeseen site conditions and design errors for individual task orders.

d) Surge plan providing details on how the offerors intends to adjust manpower to a fluctuating volume of projects

e) Effective contract progress reporting procedures

f) Effective procedures for tracking deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action and verification methods that identified deficiencies have been corrected

4) Multiple task orders management plan

Offeror shall submit a plan to describe the effort in starting up and manage (3) three task orders in the amount between €100,000.00 and €250,000.00 simultaneously.

Plan shall include:

a) Description of the administrative procedures used to staff multiple offices involved in the task order execution.

b) Provide an assessment of supplier’s capacity to meet Government’s requirements in terms of known schedule needs and the potential for excess capacity to meet critical changes in mission operational tempo.

M.3.4. Factor IV: Past Performance:

This Factor evaluates the offeror’s proposal (Proposal Volume V) for experience with the same work/trades and complexity as the requirement.

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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes evidence of:

1. At least two one (1) similar project successfully performed within the last three (3) years from the date of this solicitation where the offeror was solely responsible for the entire project performance that involved road paving works performed under SOA OG03 with a minimum value of €250,000.

2. At least two (2) similar projects successfully performed within the last three (3) years from the date of this solicitation where the offeror was solely responsible for the entire project performance that involved road paving works performed under SOA OG03 valued between €250,000 and € 500,000 for each project.

3. At least one (1) similar project successfully performed within the last three (3) years from the date of this solicitation where the offeror was solely responsible for the entire project performance that involved asphalt and/or concrete airfield paving works performed under SOA OS26 valued above € 250,000.

Table M.3.4.– Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable 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.