(DRAFT) JMACC - Evaluation Factors For Award.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 General

Proposals will be evaluated by the evaluation team in accordance with applicable regulations, which include the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) and the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS).

The evaluation team will perform the evaluation activities and will report its findings to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) who is responsible for making the source selection decision.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements as well as those items identified as evaluation factors. Incomplete proposals may be a basis for determination of unacceptability of the proposal and removal of the proposal from consideration.

M.2 Basis for Award

This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with the RFO 15.103-1, 15.104(b) and NASA FAR Supplement 1815.305.

Awards will be made to offerors:

• Deemed responsible under RFO Part 9.

• Whose proposals conform to all solicitation requirements, including:

o A Small Business Subcontracting Plan (for large businesses, per RFO 52.219-9).

o A Capabilities Document affirming the offeror’s ability to perform the work.

o Proposed Schedule that meets or exceeds the Governments requirement.

• Who are determined, through an integrated assessment of evaluation criteria, to represent the Best Value to the Government using the Performance Price Trade Off (PPTO) method.

M.3 Award Without Negotiations

This procurement will be conducted utilizing the Performance Price Trade Off process. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without negotiations with offerors (except clarifications as described in RFO 15.203). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. It is anticipated that multiple awards will be made as a result of this solicitation. Pursuant to RFO 15.204, if negotiations are to be conducted, the competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency. The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.4 Technical Acceptability

• Determined on a Pass/Fail basis.

• Based solely on submittal and compliance with solicitation requirements:

o Possession of an active SAM registration.

o Complete Representations & Certifications.

o Possession of required bonding capacity and evidential documentation on official surety letterhead.

Minimum single project bonding capacity: $40 million.

Minimum aggregate bonding capacity: $300 million.

o Submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (large businesses Only).

o Submission of a Project Schedule, (including milestone tracking, early procurement of long-lead items, and float time to mitigate potential delays) that meets or exceeds the Government’s requirement. Unrealistic or overly aggressive schedules may be viewed as a technical performance risk and could negatively impact the technical acceptability determination.

o Submission of a proposal with a total proposed price for CLIN 0001 that varies by more than 10/% (above or below) from the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) may be viewed as a technical performance risk and could negatively impact the technical acceptability determination. This threshold is intended to ensure that proposed pricing reflects a sound understanding of the requirements and aligns with market expectations.

o Submission of a Capabilities Document (informational only; not evaluated) This document will not be evaluated as part of the source selection process but may be used by the Government to support:

• Responsibility determinations under RFO Part 9.

• General understanding of the offeror’s organizational capacity.

The Capabilities Document shall include, but is not limited to:

• A brief corporate overview.

• A description of in-house resources and capacity.

Note: The Capabilities Document shall not exceed Ten (10) pages and shall not include any pricing, technical solutions, or proprietary data intended for evaluation.

In accordance with NFS 1815.300-70(b)(5), technical proposals are not required and will not be evaluated.

Any proposals determined to be technically unacceptable (Fail) will not be further evaluated.

M.5 Evaluation Factors and Relative Importance

Those proposals determined Technically Acceptable (Pass), will be further evaluated based on the following factors:

FACTOR 1 - PRICE

• Based on the total evaluated price for CLIN 0001 (EA Phase 1) to include all Bid Options

• Evaluated for reasonableness

Price is the least important factor in the tradeoff decision.

Price Tradeoffs

• Offerors may propose price discounts tied to the achievement of early completion milestones. These discounts shall:

Be clearly defined, with specific milestone dates and associated discount values.

Be verifiable and enforceable under the terms of the contract.

Be based on a realistic and achievable schedule.

If the Government determines that the proposed early completion schedule is realistic, the associated discount will be included in the total evaluated price. If the schedule is deemed unrealistic or unachievable, the Government reserves the right to exclude the discount from the price evaluation.

Note: The Government will not assign a separate rating or score to proposed schedules. Schedule considerations will only influence the price evaluation when tied to a clearly defined and realistic price discount.

FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE

• Evaluated using:

o CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) o PPIRS (Past Performance Information Retrieval System) o Other sources known to the Government

• Assessed for:

o Recency (within the past 3 years) o Relevancy- Pertinence (similar size, dollar value, scope, and complexity) o Quality (technical, management, safety, cost control, small business utilization)

• Assigned a Confidence Rating from Very High to Very Low

Past Performance is significantly more important than cost or price in the tradeoff decision.

Past Performance Evaluation Details

A. Evaluation Objective

The Government will evaluate relevant Past Performance to assess how well recently performed work—relevant to the types of effort and requirements in the solicitation—was executed. This evaluation will serve as an indicator of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform under the resulting contract. The Government may consider the qualifications and continuity of key personnel involved in prior relevant projects when assessing performance quality, to the extent such information is available in CPARS, PPIRS, or other sources.

Using performance information submitted by the offeror, and performance information independently obtained by the Government, the team will integrate the recency, relevancy and performance of all efforts evaluated for the offeror. The integration of information evaluated for each proposal will result in an overall past performance confidence assessment rating as described NFS 1815.305. The rating represents an integrated assessment of (1) the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance; and (2) the recent and relevant performance of any teaming partner(s) or joint venture participant whose efforts will meaningfully influence performance of the contract. Teaming Partners or Joint Venture is defined as two or more companies form a partnership to act as a potential prime contractor; or a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractor under JMACC. In this case past performance will only be required for Prime contractors and Architect & Engineering sub-contractors. Past performance for all other sub-contractors will not be required for evaluation.

B. Evaluation Criteria

• Recency: Only contract period of performances within 3 years from the date of the JMACC original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation.

Within this 3-year period, more recent performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than those with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal. The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.

• Relevancy- Pertinence: Projects must exceed $35,000,000 in value and demonstrate similarity in:

o Size: Dollar value and scale o Scope: includes General Construction Contracts involving aspects of Design Build, LEED, BIM within the Mechanical, Civil, and Electrical Engineering Disciplines.

o Complexity: involves management of multiple subcontractors in multiple engineering disciplines in a particular contractual effort, as well as involvement in multiple contractual efforts performed concurrently.

• Performance: Evaluation will consider how well the offeror met contract objectives in:

o Technical performance o Schedule o Cost control o Safety and quality control (to include regulatory compliance) o Management including experience/performance of Key Personnel (e.g. risk management/mitigation, responsiveness to issues, unforeseen site conditions) o Small business subcontracting

• Pertinence Ratings

Past Performance will only be assessed on recent and relevant projects exceeding $35,000,000.00 and is defined and considered as follows:

Pertinence Level Definition

Very Highly Pertinent Essentially the same magnitude of effort, scope, and complexities

Highly Pertinent Much of the same magnitude of effort, scope, and complexities

Pertinence Level Definition

Pertinent Some of the same magnitude of effort, scope, and complexities

Somewhat Pertinent Any level of the same magnitude of effort, scope, and complexities

Not Pertinent No similarity in magnitude of effort, scope, or complexities

C. Confidence Rating:

Each individual project will not be individually rated, however the information for each project will be considered and that data will be consolidated into a single level of confidence rating in accordance with the following table:

Confidence Rating Definition

Very High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more significant strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist.)

High Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths outbalance any weakness.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements;

reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (There may be strengths or weaknesses or both.)

Confidence Rating

Definition

Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards;

adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary to achieve contract requirements. ** (One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.)

Very Low Level of Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas;

problems in one or more areas which adversely affect overall performance.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses exist.)

Neutral In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

D. Performance Trade Offs

The Government will review performance schedules on prior work as part of the past performance assessment. Offerors that had a history of successful, timely performance on similar projects may receive a more favorable rating.

The Government will evaluate the cost control of prior work as a part of the past performance assessment. Offerors that were within 10% of the proposed price may receive a more favorable rating.

The Government will evaluate the safety record of prior work as a part of the past performance assessment. Offerors that were within the Offerors with a Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) below 2.8 and a Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) rate below 1.8—the national averages for the construction industry as published by OSHA/BLS may receive a more favorable rating.

Performance on Government contracts may receive a more favorable rating.

The Government reserves the right to award to a higher-priced offeror if the proposal demonstrates superior performance in areas such as schedule management, quality control, safety, and past performance. The anticipated benefits of a higher-priced proposal must merit the additional cost by offering enhanced value, reduced risk, or increased confidence in successful project execution. The evaluation will assess whether the higher-rated proposal provides advantages that are significant and relevant to the successful completion of the construction effort, such that they justify the price premium.

M.6 Source Selection Decision

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make the final award decision based on the Performance Price Tradeoff process considering price, past performance confidence, and other value-enhancing factors such as proposed schedules and early completion discounts. The SSA will:

• Consider only those offerors deemed responsive and with a High Level of Confidence and/or Very High Level of Confidence in past performance.

• Exercise business judgment in determining which proposals represent the Best Value to the Government.

• May award fewer or more than four (4) IDIQ contracts if it is in the Government’s best interest.

Initial Task Order Award – CLIN 0001 EA Phase 1:

• Only IDIQ awardees are eligible.

• Awarded to the IDIQ holder who represents the Best Value to the Government.

• Subject to RFO 52.232-18 – Availability of Funds.