Attmt 4 - Section M_MACC.pdf

RFP FA5702-25-R-0001

Attachment 4

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1 Number of Contracts. The US Government intends to award up to four (4) contracts for this Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ). The Government reserves the right to award more or less contracts, or none, if determined it to be in the Government’s best interest. All Offerors who are awarded a contract as a result of this solicitation will be onboarded to the MACC’s remaining two

(2) one-year options and will be awarded a Task Order (TO) to meet the minimum guaranteed amount of $2,000.00 USD at the time of award, subject to the availability of funds. The minimum guarantee is to pay for the awarded contractors’ ability to get three key personal base access to attend the MACC kick-off meeting, date to be determined after award.

M.1.2 Basis for Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force FAR Supplement (DAFFARS), and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022. The Government intends to award up to four contracts to the four Offerors that the Government deems most capable of meeting MACC mission requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation) based on a best value determination.

The Offerors will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented by DFARS and AFFARS, and proposals must conform to the solicitation's requirements to be eligible for award. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M.1.3 Evaluation Methodology. The following evaluation Factors and SubFactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The awarded contract(s) will incorporate all beneficial features/aspects of the awardee’s proposal and “above-threshold” (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process.

Table 1.2-1: Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors

Factors Sub-Factors Methodology for Evaluation

Factor 1: Technical

Sub-Factor 1: Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project

Technical/Risk Rating (jointly for Sub- Factors 1, 2, and 3)

Sub-Factor 2: Quality Management Plan

(QMP)

Sub-Factor 3: Base Access Management Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Confidence Assessment Rating

Factor 3: Price // Other Contracting Considerations

Reasonableness, Unbalanced Pricing, Total Evaluated Price//Compliant or Uncompliant

M.1.4 Relative Importance of Factors And Sub-Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factor 1 Technical and Factor 2 Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3 Price. Within Factor 1, the Sub-Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

M1.5 Tiered Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all proposals in the below two-tiered approach:

M1.5.1 First Tier. The Government will evaluate the information provided from L.6.4.1 to determine whether the Offeror has or can obtain approval to work in Qatar within 30 days after award notification, on a Compliant or

Uncompliant basis. Offerors who are not evaluated as Compliant will not be considered for award and will not be further evaluated.

M1.5.2 Second Tier. The second tier will only include Offerors who are found Compliant in the first tier. The Government will evaluate Offerors Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance and Factor 3 Price//Other Contracting Considerations in accordance with Table 1.2-1

M.1.6 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 and SubFactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

M.1.7 Discussions.

M.1.7.1 While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the US Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the 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 discussions, and the CO reserve the right to award a contract(s) without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

M.1.7.2 If discussions are deemed necessary and in the best interest of the Government, the Government shall make a competitive range determination (see FAR 15.306(c)). Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) shall be requested for evaluation and award from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range. If discussions occur, the Government reserves the right to request proposal updates. Any proposal updates shall be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified here.

M.2 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

The Technical Factor rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s proposed technical solution for meeting the Government requirements. The Technical Factor will only receive one rating and is influenced by each SubFactor.

The Government will assign a Technical/Risk rating, as described in Table 2-1 below:

Table 2-1 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The Technical Factor, as identified in Table 2-1, will receive one of the risk ratings defined in Table 2-2 below:

Table 2-2 Technical Factor Risk Definitions

Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness (es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal US Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close US Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close US Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

The Technical Factor, as identified in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2, may receive Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses or Deficiencies which are defined in Table 2-3 below:

Table 2-3 Additional Definitions

Term Definition

Strength An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the US Government during contract performance. See DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a US Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See

FAR 15.001.

M.2.1 Proposals shall be evaluated against the following Technical subFactors:

M.2.1.1 SubFactor 1: Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project

This SubFactor assesses the Offeror’s technical approach to accomplish all work elements of the design-build seed project, Project 25-0040 Construct ESFS North Gate Complex. The seed project is established for technical evaluation only. The evaluation will address the Offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the corresponding “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

SubFactor 1: Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.4.3.1.1. Provide a complete 65% preliminary design across all disciplines IAW Seed Project SOO (Attachment 2). The design shall be based upon the 35% concept design drawings (Attachment 2.1) and Statement of Work (Attachment 1). The following essential elements are the minimum requirements for the preliminary design:

a) Basis of Design (Design Analysis). Provide a narrative summarizing, explaining and documenting the 65% preliminary design IAW SOW, Paragraphs 2.b and 6 to address, in detail, the Offeror’s technical approach, at a minimum, to the following components: civil, architectural, structural, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, communication, fire protection, assumptions made, and construction phasing.

b) Preliminary Design Drawings. Provide the engineering design drawings describing a 65% preliminary design IAW SOW, Paragraph 2.b and 6 to include, at a minimum, the following components: civil (site), architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, communication, fire protection, construction phasing, and calculations.

c) Bill of Quantities Calculation. Provide an in-depth bill of quantities calculation consisting of position number, description, quantity, and supporting rationale for each line item IAW SOW, Paragraph

6. The line items for new construction and for renovation shall be listed separately. The new construction items consist of: Install all exterior site civil works, install architectural works to include building shell and roof system, install interior space systems to include walls, ceilings, doors, mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, electrical systems, communication systems, and fixtures, furniture and equipment as described in the SOW.

M.2.1.1. The standard is met when the proposed 65% preliminary design across all disciplines demonstrate the Offeror’s technical capability for successfully executing and completing the seed project IAW Base SOW and the proposal provides:

a) A detailed narrative that clearly and logically detailed summarizes, explains and documents the 65% preliminary design IAW Base SOW, addressing sound approach, at a minimum, for the following components: civil, architectural, structural, HVAC, plumbing, electrical, communication, fire protection, commissioning, assumptions made, and construction phasing.

b) Effective and accurate preliminary design drawings describing a 65% preliminary design IAW SOW, to include, at a minimum, the following components: civil (site), architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, communication, fire protection, FFE, construction phasing, and calculations.

c) Complete and accurate in-depth bill of quantities calculation consisting of position number, description, quantity, and supporting rationale for each line item IAW SOW. The calculations shall include line items for new construction. The new construction items consist of: Install all exterior site civil works, install architectural works to include building shell and roof system, install interior space systems to include walls, ceilings, doors, mechanical, plumbing, fire protection, electrical systems, communication systems, and fixtures, furniture and equipment as described in the SOO. All renovation line items are to be listed separately from new construction line items.

M.2.1.2 SubFactor 2: Quality Management Plan

This SubFactor will assess the Offeror’s quality control procedures, processes and methods that assure high quality workmanship during the life of the MACC program performance period. Upon contract award, this QMP will be incorporated into the basic contract to be a part of the contract requirements. The evaluation will address the Offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the corresponding “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

SubFactor 2: Quality Management Plan (QMP)

L.4.3.2.1 This SubFactor will assess the Offeror’s quality control procedures, processes and methods that assure high quality workmanship during the life of the MACC program performance period. The QMP will become an attachment to the contract upon award. The QMP will cover all activities, both onsite and offsite, work by subcontractors, fabricators, supplies, and purchasing agents:

a) Complete quality control organizational chart with a supporting narrative identifying precise lines of authority and responsibilities, including names, qualifications and duties of each person assigned.

b) Procedures for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals.

c) Control, verification, and acceptance testing procedures for each specific test to include the name, specification paragraph, feature of work to be tested, frequency, and person responsible for each test.

d) Procedures for tracking deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action, including when to inform the CO or COTR. Show established verification procedures that identified deficiencies have been corrected.

M.2.1.2 The standard is met when the proposed QMP approach assures high quality workmanship by providing effective Quality Management procedures, processes and methods for the life of the MACC program performance period and the proposal provides:

a) A clear quality control organizational structure that identifies precise lines of authorities and responsibilities, including names, qualifications and duties of each person assigned.

b) Viable procedures for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals. (Submittal Register)

c) Sufficiently addressing control, verification and acceptance testing procedures for each specific test to include the test name, specification paragraph requiring test, feature of work to be tested, test frequency and person responsible for each test.

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

M.2.1.3 SubFactor 3: Base Access Management Plan This subFactor will assess the Offeror’s base pass process to ensure timely delivery of correct bass pass request IAW Attachment 5, Base Access Information and to provide the Offeror’s mitigate and remedy if one of their employees or subcontractor’s employees base pass expires prior to completing the work on a contract. In this plan, the contractor must convey they are permitted or able to get permission within thirty days of contract award to perform work in Qatar. Failure to convey this capability will result in a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating and “High” risk rating.

SubFactor 3: Base Access Management Plan

L.4.3.3. This SubFactor will assess the Offeror’s capability to keep base access for their workforce. The Base Access Management Plan will become an attachment to the contract upon award. The Offeror shall provide a Base Access Management Plan of how they will submit, monitor, and remedy all base pass requests, and be compliant with SOO Paragraph 22 and the Base Access Information (Attachment 5).

a) The Offeror shall provide a Base Access

Management Plan of how they will submit, monitor, and remedy all base pass requests.

b) This will also include the Offeror to confirm they have or can obtain the proper certifications to perform business in Qatar.

c) The Offeror shall follow the base access procedures set forth in attachment 5. All Foreign Nationals are required to be registered at the North Gate Pass and ID Office per AFMAN 31-113 which establishes local policy and instructional guidance for entry requirements onto Al Udeid Air Base Installation.

M.2.1.3 The standard is met when the proposed Base Access Management Plan is submitted for review and found to be acceptable to the US Government….

a) The Base Access Management Plan clearly demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of submitting, monitoring, and remediation of all base pass requests.

b) The Offeror shall submit all business licenses and engineering certifications for work in the State of Qatar and have found to be acceptable by the US Government.

c) The Offeror followed all procedures as set forth in the base access procedures document, followed local policy and instructional guidance for entry and escort requirements while performing work on the Al Udeid Air Base Installation.

M.3 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 construction 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 the contract successfully.

The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance.

M.3.1 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

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: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases to include, but not limited to, interviews with Program Managers, Past Performance Information (PPI) POCs, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), an/or commercial sources.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

The Offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for three categories: Recency, Relevancy, and Performance Quality. The Government will only evaluate Performance Quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

M.3.2 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this RFP, to include at least six (6) months of documented performance during the five-year period. Contract performance that meets these criteria will be evaluated in their entirety. Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be considered or evaluated.

M.3.3 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the effort performed under those contracts/TOs relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. Offerors are required to demonstrate performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope (broad range of repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and minor construction projects on various real property); magnitude (historical average value of TOs issued under the MACC is approximately $1 million USD or equivalent in foreign currency); and complexity (multiple functions/trades, including design-build, performance at multiple locations, etc.) than the effort described in this solicitation. The Government may give greater weight to performance on contracts where the Offeror performed/is performing as the prime contractor. The Government may give greater weight to performance on contracts deemed more relevant; however, there will be no relative comparison between contracts assigned within the same rating (for example, on “Very Relevant” contract will not be rated higher or lower than other “Very Relevant” contract). The Government will use the following DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, relevancy definitions:

TABLE 4 – RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

Adjectival Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

M.3.4 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets the solicitation requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the Offeror’s history of 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.

The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

For the purposes of evaluating past performance the following definitions will be utilized to establish ratings:

Code Performance Rating

E EXCEPTIONAL – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

V VERY GOOD – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S SATISFACTORY – Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE – Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available. Do not know.

M.3.5 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessment of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. This rating represents the overall evaluation of contractor performance.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant, favorable past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. NOTE:

The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror rated “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” under the Past Performance Factor.

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessment, below:

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Adjectival Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance 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.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the

M.4 FACTOR 3 – PRICE

The Offeror’s price proposal for the design-build seed project will not be assigned an adjectival rating but will be evaluated for completeness and price reasonableness. Each Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by adding the construction line-item prices proposed.

M.4.1 Completeness. The Government will evaluate the Price Volume for completeness to ensure the inclusion and submission of the price data and other contracting consideration information required in Section L.6.

M.4.2 Price Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the price data submitted per Section L.6, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine the price reasonableness.

Any other data provided by the Offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

M.4.2.1 Reasonableness will be based on the TEP in comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), historical actual for similar effort(s), and price competition obtained by the other Offerors proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The Offerors whose TEP is determined to be unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 may not be considered for award.

M.4.2.2 The Government will evaluate the individual line items of the design-build seed project price proposal to determine whether prices are complete and reasonable for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Note that incomplete proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement.

M.4.2.3 If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.