Draft Sections L_M.docx

FA875124R0004

FA875124R0004 – Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) Source Selection Plan (SSP) Attachment 1

Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

Notice to Offerors:

1. Project Funding

a. Funds are not presently available for this project. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an Offeror for any costs.

2. Conditions

a. In accordance with FAR 16.504(c)(1)(B), the contracting officer has determined that a multiple award approach must not be used.

3. Proposal Preparation Instructions

a. The Offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the solicitation and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Specifications. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the solicitation may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

b. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

c. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding or detailed artwork are unnecessary and are not desired.

d. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Block 13D of the SF1442. The Offeror shall make a clear statement in Part III of the proposal (Price Proposal) that the proposal is valid through this date.

e. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one electronic copy of all unsuccessful proposals.

f. Offerors’ proposals must consist of a Technical Proposal (Part I), Past Performance Information (Part II), and Price Proposal (Part III). The proposals shall include documentation as listed under Specific Instructions. The Government will evaluate all proposals in accordance with Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Offerors shall submit one (1) electronic original of Part I, Part II, and Part III. Proposal submissions shall be emailed to Larry Barto (Larry.Barto.1@us.af.mil) with a courtesy copy to John Haberer (John.Haberer@us.af.mil). Offerors are responsible for following up to ensure proposals were delivered and no technical issues arose.

g. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

h. The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price.

i. Joint Venture Offerors: If the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the joint venture agreement with proposal. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the joint venture. Past performance information may be submitted on behalf of the joint venture by either party to the joint venture. Joint venture past performance will be evaluated and rated on the basis of either party's past performance. Joint Venture Agreements must be received by the SBA prior to proposal due date and approved before award of a resultant contract. No corrections and/or changes are permitted after the time for submission of offers.

j. Teaming/Partnering Offerors: If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship, the Offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties, including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the teaming/partnering relationship.

4. Specific Instructions:

Part I - Technical Proposal - Limited to 20 pages

a. Subfactor 1: Program Management Offeror shall submit a program management plan that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to adequately staff and manage multiple construction projects under short, time-critical deadlines, including the following minimum qualifications:

i. The Offeror’s company organization, to include owner, Project Manager, Site Superintendent/Supervisor, Estimator, and Drafting Technician. If an employee occupies more than one primary position, that must be indicated to avoid being rated Unacceptable for omitting a position. The Offeror’s plan must give the qualifications of the members of the home office and on-site staff, including superintendent, and their responsibilities should the Offeror receive contract award. The plan must further show an organizational diagram (including resumés, but excluding names) and where the on-site staff fit into the Offeror’s company. The plan should further define the authority held by the members of the home office and on-site staffs.

ii. Each proposed Superintendent capability must include the following minimum levels of expertise to be acceptable:

· No less than five (5) years experience in Construction Management, to include technical communications, problem solving, cost estimating and negotiations, project control and scheduling, successful management of subcontractors, knowledge of building code and industry standards, and strong leadership skills to complete a construction project from start to finish.

· To provide a better product with regard to sourcing labor availability and sourcing of materials, no less than three (3) years experience working in the Central New York construction market (90 mile radius from Rome, NY).

iii. A Quality Control (QC) Plan. Additionally, the Offeror shall explain how their staff will administer the QC Plan and their approach to QC in sufficient detail to evaluate the frequency and quality of Contractor inspections and how progress will be measured. (Please note – QC Plan does not count toward the 20-page limit for this part).

iv. Evidence of the Offeror’s ability to mobilize a work force of skilled tradespersons for work at AFRL/RI. This shall include identification of any skilled tradespersons that are not expected to need to be subcontracted and evidence of ability to acquire additional labor when required. It shall also include a list of prime contractor trades that are not expected to be subcontracted and include the Offeror’s approach to effectively interface with AFRL/RI and subcontractor personnel keeping in mind that a basic objective of this contract is a quick response capability.

v. The Offeror’s contemplated on-site supervision and describe how the Offeror will be able to formulate and manage new and ongoing task orders simultaneously.

vi. The Offeror’s plan for providing quick response (i.e. – emergency work order) capabilities as well as a similar plan for on- site requirements during non-working hours (as defined in paragraph 2.0 of the contract specifications).

Successful Offeror’s program management plan shall be incorporated in its entirety into any resultant contract.

b. Subfactor 2: Subcontract Management Offeror shall submit a plan that, at a minimum, includes the following:

1. Identification of the proposed level of subcontracting and in-house work to be accomplished

2. Proposed approach to investigating potential subcontracting opportunities

3. Offeror’s policies, procedures, and functional responsibilities for selection and management of subcontractors, to include: subcontractor selection criteria and actions to promote competition

4. Details of Offeror’s subcontracting management system for surveillance, quality control, and scheduling of subcontractors.

Through the subcontracting management plan, an Offeror must portray how it intends to acquire, manage, promote competition amongst, and schedule subcontractors to provide high quality, efficient subcontractors with minimal response times in support of various SABER requirements. Successful Offeror’s subcontracting management plan shall be incorporated in its entirety into any resultant contract.

c. Subfactor 3: Seed Project

The SABER seed project is "Repair Pattern Shop, 21W, Building 101, Project No: ULDF# 23-0002. The Statement of Work (SOW), plus any applicable drawings/sketches for the project are identified in Section J. Offeror shall prepare a seed project proposal, which shall include a written narrative of the work required to complete the project, R.S. Means Proposal and any drawings, details, schedules, tables, etc., or other information required to clearly illustrate and describe the completed design and associated price. This project is typical of SABER work, where the minimum design provided to the contractor is 35%. The Offeror is responsible for submitting documentation (R.S. Means breakout/drawings/proposal/etc.) that substantiates their proposed approach to completing the design to 100% and performing all work required to complete the construction. The Offeror’s seed project proposal shall be prepared using the most current version of the R.S. Means and shall be in strict accordance with the requirements of the solicitation to include all specifications, local, and state requirements, laws, regulations, codes, etc. Please note: although a price must be proposed for the seed project, this subfactor will not be evaluated for price except for use as a tie breaker for evaluation as set forth in Section M. This subfactor will allow the Government to evaluate an Offeror’s ability to complete a partial design and select the necessary line items from the R.S. Means to incorporate all work required. Inclusion of unnecessary line items may result in a determination that an Offeror does not understand the Government’s requirements and a Technical rating of “Unacceptable”. Additionally, this subfactor will reinforce the Offeror’s ability to acquire and implement subcontractors as requested in Subfactor 2 above.

Failure to provide any of the required information for the subfactors above may result in an offer receiving a Technical rating of “Unacceptable”.

Part II - Past Performance - The Government will evaluate the quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information) and extent of all technically acceptable Offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP using the following:

a. Data provided by the Offeror

The Offeror shall provide quality and satisfaction ratings for contracts completed in the past five (5) years (within five (5) years of issuance of the solicitation date). Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for same or similar type of work. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc. The Offeror shall provide a narrative explaining what aspects of the contract is deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. Specifically, the narrative should focus on similarities to the scope, degree of effort, and complexity of this solicitation. Furnish the following information for each contract listed:

Company/Division name Project Title Contracting Agency/Customer Contract Number (if any) Contract Dollar Value Period of Performance Verified, up-to-date name, address, e-mail & telephone number of the contracting officer Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

This part shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) contracts with no more than two (2) pages per contract listed. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first-time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

b. Data obtained from other sources (i.e. internal Government databases)

c. Past performance questionnaires

As soon as practicable, Offerors shall email Past Performance Questionnaires to references for completion. The references will complete the questionnaires and forward them to the contract specialist (Larry Barto) via email. RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHALL NOT SEND THE COMPLETED INFORMATION SHEETS BACK TO THE OFFEROR. Only questionnaires for the same or similar types of contracts are desired. It will be the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the questionnaires are received by their referenced sources and returned to the contract specialist no later than the proposal due date. Once completed, the questionnaires will become source selection information; so the subject line of the reference’s email containing the completed questionnaire shall be marked as “SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”. Questionnaires received after the proposal due date may not be used for evaluation purposes. This part shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) completed questionnaires.

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, major subcontractors, and teaming contractor/partner that will perform major or critical (e.g. mechanical or electrical) aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror.

Part III - Price Proposal

a. Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 (if applicable), 20A, 20B and 20C of the SF1442. In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract.

b. Offeror shall insert proposed coefficient in Section B. The offered coefficient shall contain all allowable prime contractor and subcontractor costs, including contingencies and profit. Examples of such costs are; gross receipts taxes, payroll taxes (FICA, workmen's compensation, state and federal unemployment taxes for direct payroll employees, etc.), superintendents' salaries, builders' risk insurance, initial contract startup, mobilization, and demobilization expenses. The offered coefficient shall also contain various overhead expenses, including, project estimating, site office overhead, field office building, furniture, equipment, on-site office staff salaries, vehicle and construction equipment maintenance, office administrative expenses, and a proportional share of home office overhead. The offered coefficient shall also include the required RSMEANS Subscriptions, Microsoft Project Software and Unit Price Guides (UPG) for RRS Civil Engineering use as defined in 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION, Section 1.5.3. in the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) Index. Daily clean-up shall be performed at all active project sites and shall be paid from the coefficient and shall not be a direct TO cost. The coefficient shall also include all insurance, special clothing for workers, traffic barricades, additional supervision, as well as, paperwork fees associated with a particular task order, for example, asbestos removal plan, lead abatement plan, consultant fees, all on and off-site storage, etc. All asbestos abatement is mandated as a Non-Prepriced Item (NPI) and must be supported with competitive subcontractor quotes.

i. Schedule of Pricing Coefficients Applied to Prepriced Items: The Offeror must propose one (1) coefficient for CLIN 0001 which applies to all line items included in this contract. The Offeror’s proposal will be in the form of a multiplier applied to the R. S. MEANS ® Facility Construction Cost Data Unit Price Book (R.S. MEANS) published cost for “TOTAL BARE COST” (TO INCLUDE MATERIAL, LABOR AND EQUIPMENT)”. The multiplier is limited to two (2) decimal places; and shall represent "net" (equal to 1.0), or a percentage "decrease from" (e.g. .92) or an "increase" (e.g. 1.12) to the unit prices listed in the R.S. MEANS. The purpose of applying the coefficients to direct pre-priced costs from the Unit Price Book is to compensate the Offeror for burden costs and profit for performance. The pricing coefficient is not subject to economic price adjustments and will remain unchanged for the entirety of the contract. Each Offeror must submit one (1) coefficient in order to be considered responsive to the RFP requirements. All Offerors shall provide explanation regarding the rationale used to determine the coefficient.

ii. Performance and Payment Bonds: Performance and Payment bonds are not part of the Price Proposal. Bonding shall be required on a task order basis according to FAR 28.102-2.

1. Within 10 calendar days after receipt of the signed task order or notice of award, the contractor shall furnish two bonds, each with good and sufficient surety or sureties acceptable to the Government; namely a Performance Bond (SF 25) and a Payment Bond (SF 25A). The penal sums of each bond shall be 100 percent of the original contract price for each.

2. For task orders greater than $35,000 but not greater than $150,000, the contracting officer shall determine the payment protection on a case-by-case basis.

3. The cost of bonding is an allowable expense and shall be shown on a task order proposal, if applicable.

c. The Price Proposal should be limited to three (3) pages. Submission of volumes of computer-generated data to support the price proposal is not necessary or desired. If computer-generated data is essential to support the price proposal, it may be submitted as an addendum and must be clearly cross- referenced to the material it supports in the price proposal.

d. The following listed Divisions and their subdivisions of Division 01–General Requirements as contained in RSMEANS® Cost Data shall not be used as line items in pricing task orders issued under this contract. These costs shall be covered in the coefficients unless otherwise approved by the Contracting Officer:

Division 01 11 - Summary of work Division 01 21 - Allowances Division 01 31 - Project management and Coordination Division 01 32 - Construction Progress Documentation Division 01 74 - Clean-Up Division 01 91 - Commissioning The RSMEANS® Company updates their database yearly. This update shall provide the only economic price adjustment under the contract.

e. The Price Proposal should represent the Offeror’s best response to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost or price data must be fully explained in the proposal. Failure to explain any significant inconsistencies may demonstrate Offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature and scope of the work required. Accordingly, the Price Proposal must be sufficient to establish the reasonableness of the proposed coefficient. Further, any modifications made to the initial proposal must likewise by thoroughly supported in writing regardless of whether such changes are made during negotiations or at the time of a Final Proposal Revision, if requested.

5. Responsiveness Determination

Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be consistent with the following to be determined responsive:

a. Requirements of the RFP (Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINs), Specifications and Seed Project Statement of Work (SOW), and Government standards and regulations pertaining to the Seed Project SOW.

b. Evaluation Factors for Award in Section M of this RFP.

c. Any limitation on the number of proposal pages. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this Section L will not be read or evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

d. Format for proposal Parts I, II & III shall be as follows:

i. A page is defined as an electronic document equivalent of one face of an 8 1/2" x 11" printed sheet of paper containing information.

ii. Font shall not be less than 12 point.

6. Contract Forms

The following data shall be included in this section in the format indicated.

a. Section I:

i. Proposal forwarding letter, if any

ii. Standard Form 1442, Information to Offerors or Quoters Cover Sheet – Complete in its entirety the “Offeror” portion of the Standard Form 1442, blocks 14 through 20.c, located at pages 1 and 2 of this solicitation. In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract. An official having the authority to contractually bind the Offeror must sign and date the SF 1442 in accordance with FAR 4.102

iii. Sections G through K – Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections G through I, the Offeror shall submit only those pages that require fill-in(s)

iv. Small Business Administration Documentation (SBA) – In accordance with FAR 19.1505, this effort is a 100% Small Business set-aside. Include documentation to substantiate that the Offeror qualifies as a Small Business concern.

b. Section II Exceptions to Terms and Conditions

Offerors are reminded that exceptions to terms and conditions will be considered as part of an integrated assessment of all offers received (as indicated in Section M, paragraph 1(c) of this solicitation, entitled “General Considerations”). Thus, the most effective time to request clarification of, or express an exception to, the terms and conditions set forth in the solicitation is during the proposal preparation stage, i.e. prior to the proposal due date, NOT in your proposal. If your offer includes exceptions to terms and conditions, they must be explained and justified in this Section in sufficient detail to allow the Government to determine the acceptability of your offer without necessitating discussions with your firm. Failure to provide detailed support for your position may, in conjunction with the other evaluation elements identified in Section M, lead to the determination that your proposal does not offer the best overall value to the Government. In the event that award is not made based on initial proposals and discussions are held, any revisions to the model contract (Sections A through J and Attachments) are to be agreed upon to the maximum extent possible during discussions by the Offeror and the Government before the Government requests a Final Proposal Revision.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Evaluation Criteria:

a. Introduction: This section outlines those factors, which comprise the criteria the Government will consider in evaluating Offerors' capabilities and proposals. The criteria listed are intended to show the scope of the evaluation to be performed on proposals submitted in response to the Request for Proposal. Evaluations will be accomplished by comparing Offerors' capabilities and proposal elements against the Government’s requirements.

b. Basis For Award: This is a best value competitive source selection restricted to Small Business concerns, conducted in accordance with tradeoff source selection processes pursuant to FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPT) of those offers found technically acceptable.

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government will compare differences in performance confidence with differences in price to the Government. In making this comparison the Government values superior performance confidence approximately equal to price (see FAR 15.101-1). The Government may make an award at a higher overall price to achieve superior performance confidence.

This may result in an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the performance confidence and/or overall business approach of the higher priced Offeror(s) outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

c. Procedures. While it is the Government’s intention to not hold discussions due to the nature of competitive acquisitions, discussions may be held if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Should discussions be held, all information furnished by Offerors will be evaluated, including Offeror’s responses to Evaluations Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs).

i. The Technical factor will receive the adjectival rating of Acceptable/Unacceptable in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures Appendix C paragraph C.2.1.1, Table C-1, Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method. This factor assessment depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the evaluation criteria and the solicitation requirements. The Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings can be found in section e, Specific Criteria for Award.

ii. Offers receiving an unacceptable technical rating will not be further evaluated.

iii. Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents (as illustrated in Table 5 below), the evaluation of an Offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet user’s needs, including cost and schedule. Each relevant contract shall have been completed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Technical factor and the Price factor. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s present and past performance, including joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners, will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contacts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are the most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor is being proposed. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy definitions can be found in section e, Specific Criteria for Award.

iv. More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent, less relevant performance.

v. The SSEB will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The SSEB will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by Offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources.

vi. When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

vii. The SSEB may consider the Offeror’s (including subcontractor, teaming arrangement and joint ventures) past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort (contract) by effort basis.

viii. As a result of an analysis of those positive and negative aspects indicators identified, each Offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. These ratings are defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factor and the Price factor, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

ix. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Neutral Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

x. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

xi. After evaluation of all technical factors and the performance confidence assessment have been completed, price to the Government will be compared against the evaluation results to determine the combination that provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. An Offeror’s proposed coefficient and its determined reasonableness are the sole evaluated criteria for the price factor.

d. General Considerations: Proposals will be reviewed to determine if the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration. Offerors must clearly identify any exception taken to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Offerors that are not excluded from consideration are considered “evaluated Offerors” in the evaluation process described in paragraph 1.c.

e. Specific Criteria for Award: The three (3) factors identified below will be considered during proposal evaluation. This is a best value competitive source selection restricted to Small Business concerns, conducted in accordance with tradeoff source selection processes pursuant to FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPT) of those offerors found technically acceptable, with price and past performance being approximately equal.

i. Factor 1 – Technical – This factor addresses the acceptability of the Offeror’s proposal for adequately staffing and managing multiple construction projects under short, time-critical deadlines, including subcontractor management and control while minimizing technical, cost, and schedule risks. It also includes the acceptability of the Offeror’s proposal to work efforts through identification of skilled tradespersons on staff or evidence of ability to acquire additional labor when required. This factor includes the Offeror’s ability to complete a partial design and select the necessary line items from the R.S. Means to incorporate all work required for construction. Additionally, it addresses the soundness of the Offeror’s quality control procedures and methods, frequency of inspections of work, and interface with Government project managers. The evaluation will rate the acceptability of the offers based on the requirements outlined in section L, acceptability of the Offeror’s program management plan, acceptability of the Offeror’s subcontract management plan, and acceptability of the Offeror’s seed project proposal.

Subfactor 1 – Program Management – Acceptability of the Offeror’s proposed approach to adequately staffing and managing multiple construction projects under short, time critical deadlines, while meeting minimum qualification requirements, ensuring quality control, ability to mobility to mobilize a workforce of skilled tradespersons, manage current and on-going task orders, and provide quick response capabilities.

Subfactor 2 – Subcontract Management – Acceptability of the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting all small business requirements that affect subcontracting opportunities, including responsibilities tied to management of subcontractors, surveillance/quality control, and promoting competition to obtain high quality efficient subcontractors with minimal response times.

Subfactor 3 – Seed Project – Acceptability of the Offeror’s proposed approach to all requirements tied to the repair of the Wood Pattern Shop at Building 101, Rome, NY following applicable codes, statement of work, drawings and specifications.

ii. Factor 2 - Past Performance - This factor addresses the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance met customer requirements, including the Offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, compliance with all safety and health requirements necessary for the protection of personnel, facilities, and equipment, and generally the contractor’s business-like concern for the interests of the customer. In addition, the degree to which the Offeror complies with FAR 52.219-8, "Utilization of Small Business Concerns" will be evaluated based on performance under previous Government contracts containing this clause. The Government shall seek and evaluate relevant past performance information based on (1) past performance information provided by the Offeror, (2) information obtained from the references provided by the Offeror, and (3) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s ability to perform the construction work described in this RFP, based on the Offeror’s recency, relevancy, and quality of demonstrated past performance. Offerors with no relevant past performance history shall receive the rating “neutral”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The Government will only evaluate past performance performed within the 5 years prior to the date of this solicitation.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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 required effort.

iii. Factor 3 - Price – The price factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

1. Reasonableness – The degree to which the proposed coefficient factor percentage compares to the factor a reasonable and prudent person would expect to incur for the same or similar goods or services in the Utica/Rome, New York area. The evaluation for award will be based upon a comparison of the Offeror’s proposed coefficient factor to that reported in the current R.S. Means for the Utica/Rome area. Unreasonably high or low coefficient factor percentage, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirements or the coefficient represents an unacceptable risk.

2. In the event that two (2) or more technically acceptable proposals have equal past performance confidence ratings and coefficients, the Government shall use the total price of the seed project as a tie-breaker.

f. Competitive Advantage From Use of GFP. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).