Attch 6 PNQS-09-4491 Repair Dining Facility Bldg. 668 - Section M.docx

Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award I. Basis for Contract Award

(A) Source Selection Methodology: This competitive acquisition will be conducted using the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 215.3 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and Mandatory Procedure 5315.3 in which competing Offerors' past performance information will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price considerations.

By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another Offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal has acceptable past performance, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph II. Evaluation Factors for Award below.

B. Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor I - Past Performance Proposal (Volume II) Factor II - Price Proposal (Volume III) II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. Volume II, Factor I - Past Performance

(a) Past Performance Factor: The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on an offeror based on: (i) the references provided by the offeror and any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (RFP Attch 7); and (ii) any data independently obtained by the Government, including responsibility and qualification records accessed through the System for Award Management (SAM), and contractor performance assessments available in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). If a reference identified by the Offeror in accordance with Section L does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference Point of Contact (POC), but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire. The past performance evaluation will consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(b) Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, somewhat relevant, relevant, and very relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror's performance meets contract specification requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the Offeror's adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

(c) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last five (5) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the five (5) year period.

(d) Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

- The total value must > $10M over the life of the contract.

- Performance duration must be > 365 days.

- Performance must include experience at least six (6) of the following six (6) construction divisions: (a) Metal (b) Wood and Plastics (c) Doors and Windows (d) Finishes (e) Mechanical/Plumbing/HVAC (f) Electrical/Fire System/Communications.

complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must meet the following criteria:

- The total value must > $8M over the life of the contract.

- Performance duration must be > 265 days.

- Performance must include experience at least five (5) of the following six (6) construction divisions: (a) Metal (b) Wood and Plastics (c) Doors and Windows (d) Finishes (e) Mechanical/Plumbing/HVAC (f) Electrical/Fire System/Communications.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must meet the following criteria:

- The total value must > $6M over the life of the contract.

- Performance duration must be > 165 days.

- Performance must include experience at least four (4) of the following six (6) construction divisions: Performance must include experience at least six (6) of the following six (6) construction divisions: (a) Metal (b) Wood and Plastics (c) Doors and Windows (d) Finishes (e) Mechanical/Plumbing/HVAC (f) Electrical/Fire System/Communications.

and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, all performance fails to meet one of the three relevancy ratings: "Very Relevant", "Relevant" or "Somewhat Relevant."

(e) Sources: The Government may seek relevant performance information from the Offeror in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the Offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation may take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company, or joint ventures of the parent company, when:

(1) The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

(2) When the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed effort.

(f) Performance Evaluation: In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror's past performance meets the specification requirements of previous efforts, the assessment may consider things such as: the Offeror's history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

When a relevant and recent performance record indicates performance problems, the Government may consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

(g) Performance Confidence Assessment: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror's ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror's demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the Offeror to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as described below in Table 4.

Table 4. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

B. Volume III, Factor II -Price Evaluation. The Government will rank all offers by price. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price TEP. Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

(a) Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17. The Offeror's TEP will be determined as the sum of Contract Line Item (CLIN) 0001, 0002, and 0003.

(b) In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or subline item(s) appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror's proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(c) Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness; therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

(d) PPT: After the initial evaluation of each Offeror's price, the Government will rank all Offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP. Next, the Government will conduct Past Performance Evaluation for the Offeror with the lowest TEP. If an Offeror with the lowest TEP is assessed a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence rating, its offer will be determined to represent the best value to the Government and no other offers will be considered.

If the Offeror with the lowest TEP, does not have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest TEP offer will be evaluated, and the process will continue (in order by price) until an Offeror is judged to have a "Substantial Confidence" performance confidence assessment rating or until all Offerors are considered. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated assessment, best value award decision which will include the Offeror with a "Substantial Confidence" performance assessment rating (if found) and all offers with TEPs lower than the TEP of the Offeror with the Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, unless it is in the Government's best interest to conduct discussions.

For example: Five offers are received; the Offerors with the first and second lowest TEP offers have performance assessment ratings less than Substantial Confidence, but the Offeror with the third lowest TEP has a performance assessment rating of Substantial Confidence. The SSA would make an integrated assessment, best value award decision among those three Offerors.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Section)