DRAFTAttachment B Section M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1. TRADEOFF AND SIGNIFICANCE OF FACTORS. This acquisition will utilize a gated Contractor Responsiveness and Performance Price Tradeoff source selection procedures, in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022 referenced in DFARS PGI 215.300, the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

Offeror proposals will each be evaluated for responsiveness, technical acceptability, price reasonableness and balance, and past performance. For those offerors whose proposals are determined responsive and whose technical proposal is acceptable and price is determined fair and reasonable, the Government may choose to award to higher priced offerors based on their evaluated past performance.

This is what is referred to as the “tradeoff” between past performance and price where the offeror’s Past Performance factor is considered significantly more important than the Price factor. The Government intends to award to offerors with highly effective program and project management processes and methods that assure high quality workmanship and problem resolution during the life of the MACC program performance period. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

M.1.2. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD. A single Request For Proposals (RFP) will be issued with the anticipation of awarding approximately eight (8) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) construction contracts to those responsible offerors whose proposals conform to all the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, as well as all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and provide the best Performance Price Tradeoff value based upon the evaluation method described in M.2. below.

Those offerors selected for the award of individual IDIQ contracts will create a pool of offerors, collectively referred to as the “Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC),” who will compete exclusively among themselves for future requirements identified by Aviano AB for competition under the MACC.

All IDIQ contracts awarded as a result of this solicitation will be for a ten (10) year ordering period. The base contracts will be initiated by awarding an individual Task Order (TO) to each awardee for Orientation Training, in order to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award.

The Government will utilize a real construction requirement, Project No. ASHE 17-1027 Sustain Fac. 904, Aviano AB, Italy (the “Seed Project”) to assess offerors’ ability to accurately price and accomplish technical requirements issued under the MACC. For the Seed Project the Government intends to award (subject to the availability of funds) a Task Order (TO) to one of the MACC awardees selected who submitted the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal (LPTA). The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 240 calendar days from the date of receipt of offers to award the MACC minimum TOs and 365 calendar days from the date of receipt of offers to award Project No. ASHE 17-1027 Sustain Fac. 904, Aviano AB, Italy .

M.1.3 DISCUSSIONS. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the approval of the Source Selection Authority, 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.2. EVALUATION FACTORS

M 2.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will utilize an integrated evaluation approach to select the proposal(s) that provide the best value to the Government. To arrive at a decision, the Government will assess each offer in accordance with the following evaluation factors:

Contractor Responsiveness Documentation Volume I: Technical

Sub-factor 1: Capability

DRAFT

Sub-factor 2: Management Approach Sub-factor 3: Technical Execution of the Seed Project

Volume II: Price - Seed Project and Labor Categories/Overhead and Profit Volume III: Past Performance

M.2.2 EVALUATION PROCESS. The Government intends to award up to eight (8) Construction IDIQ contracts, but retains the right to award fewer or more contracts based on quantity and quality of proposals received, and may award a contract(s) to other than the lowest price, if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of an offeror with higher price is justified by better past performance. The evaluation process will be conducted in steps as described here following. Proposals must meet the requirements of each step to advance to the next step in the evaluation process:

Step 1 RESPONSIVENESS: Offerors will be evaluated for responsiveness as defined in Section L.4. An offeror determined to be non-responsive will be removed from competition and not be considered for award. Only responsive proposals will advance to Step 2.

Step 2 TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY: Offerors determined to be responsive will be evaluated for acceptability of the Technical Proposal. The technical evaluation team will accomplish evaluations IAW Section M.3.2. Only technically acceptable offers will advance to Step 3.

Step 3 PRICE (SEED PROJECT AND LABOR/OH&P): The price evaluation team will evaluate the offerors proposed labor and OH/P costs and price for the Seed Project, to determine completeness, balanced pricing and price reasonableness IAW M.3.3. Only Offerors who pass the Price Evaluation can advance to Step 4.

Step 4 PAST PERFORMANCE: All remaining offers will be ordered by price, lowest to highest, and then evaluated for past performance. Past performance Evaluations will begin with the lowest priced offeror. Past Performance ratings will be assigned in accordance with the ratings in table M-5. Evaluations will conclude after ten (10) offerors with past performance ratings of “Substantial Confidence” have been identified or until all offers are evaluated, whichever occurs first. In the event of a tie for offers with the same price and a “Substantial Confidence” Past Performance rating, the following tie breaker criteria will be applied in descending order of importance until the offers are selected to proceed to Step 5: 1. Number of evaluations with ratings higher than “Substantial Confidence”; 2. Recency of Very Relevant past performance references.

Offers with a past performance rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” will not advance to Step 5. An example is provided below (offerors C-I did not advance to step 5):

Offeror Past Performance Rating Price A *Does Advance* Substantial Confidence $60 B *Does Advance* Satisfactory Confidence $62 C *Does Not Advance* Limited Confidence $65 D *Does Advance* Substantial Confidence $70 E *Does Advance* Neutral Confidence $73 F *Does Advance* Substantial Confidence $76 G *Does Advance* Substantial Confidence $80 H *Does Advance* Satisfactory Confidence $82 I *Does Not Advance* No Confidence $85 J *Does Advance* Substantial Confidence $86

Step 5 INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an integrated assessment of best value award decision using Price and the Past Performance Confidence Ratings. The integrated assessment may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. Past performance of offerors presenting technically acceptable proposals is considered significantly more important than price.

M.3 SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA.

M.3.1 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIVENESS. Offerors will be evaluated for responsiveness as defined in Section L.4. An offeror determined to be non-responsive will be removed from competition and not considered for award.

M.3.2 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

Evaluation Process: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “Acceptable” rating for every subfactor. Proposals which are evaluated as “Acceptable” under all Technical subfactors will be evaluated for Price and Past Performance.

Table M-1

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the requirements of the solicitation.

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

M.3.2.1. Sub-Factor 1 – Capability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proficiency to simultaneously perform several requirements/projects as those described in the MACC SOW based on the information provided with Attachment 6 and cross reference with Past Performance documentation.

Measure of merit: This standard is met when a minimum of two (2) projects meet the following minimum criteria:

a) Evidence of projects simultaneous performance.

b) Works were completed by time this solicitation is issued.

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

d) Each work shall have a minimum value of €200,000.00.

e) Simultaneous work performance of submitted projects shall be a minimum of 30 consecutive calendar days.

f) Works were completed by the offeror as prime contractor.

M.3.2.2 Sub-Factor 2 - Management Approach. The Government will assess the offeror’s approach for ensuring high quality and highly efficient management of projects throughout the life of the MACC performance period. Upon contract award, these plans may be incorporated into the basic contract as part of the contract requirements.

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how its management approach meets the criteria outlined in the right-hand column of the following “Management Approach” table (the corresponding “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is included exactly as written in Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Table M-2 Management Approach

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.5.3.2.1. Provide a detailed Quality Management Plan (QMP) to include, at a minimum, the following components to cover all activities, for both onsite and offsite work, by fabricators, suppliers, and purchasing agents:

a) Complete Quality Control (QC) organizational chart with a supporting narrative identifying precise lines of authority and responsibilities, including names, qualifications and duties of each person assigned to a QC function.

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

c) Procedures for tracking deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action. Establish verification procedures that identified deficiencies have been corrected.

d) Reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats.

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

a) A clear and effective QC organizational structure that identifies precise lines of authorities and responsibilities, including names, qualifications and duties of each person assigned to a QC function, including project liaison personnel proficient in English speaking and writing.

b) Effective procedures for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals.

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

d) Effective reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats.

L.5.3.2.2. Submit Multi-Project Management Plan for the MACC

This standard is met when the proposed Multi-Project Management Plan provides highly effective processes and procedures for simultaneously managing multiple projects at multiple locations throughout Italy, for the life of the MACC program performance period.

L.5.3.2.3. Submit Change/Cost Control Management Plan for the

MACC

This standard is met when the proposed Change/Cost Control Management Plan provides highly effective processes and procedures to manage contract changes and control cost for the life of the MACC program performance period.

M.3.2.3 Sub-Factor 3 - Technical Execution of Seed Project. This subfactor assesses the offeror’s understanding of the seed project design and the technical approach submitted to accomplish all work elements of the seed project.

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the seed project requirement. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the corresponding “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left references corresponding instructions from Section L.5.3.3. and is provided here for reference only):

Table M-3 Execution of Seed Project

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS EVALUATION CRITERIA

Submit narrative “Design Validation Report”

This standard is met when the proposed Design Validation Report clearly demonstrates the offeror’s thorough understanding and acceptance of the Government provided design, demonstrating a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Submit narrative “Schedule Plan”

This standard is met when the proposed schedule, phasing plan, crew assembly, and safety plan logically supports the contract duration and adequately addresses a clear understanding of the project scope, including restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (e.g., permitting, long lead items, phasing, outages, etc.) and an understanding of events associated with coordinating submittals.

Proposing a contract duration less than the duration listed in FAR clause 52.211-10 for the Seed Project will not add value to an offeror’s proposal.

Submit narrative “Technical Approach”

This standard is met when the proposed Technical Approach adequately addresses a clear understanding of managing the contract and accomplishing all work elements of the project in accordance with the Technical Specifications and Statement of Work. To facilitate evaluation, the information provided should be specific, detailed, and clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirement for the accomplishment of this effort.

NOTE: Actual errors/mistakes/omissions identified during the design validation must be identified in the design validation report.

However, pricing submitted in Volume 2 must be based on the original design provided by the Government.

M.3.3 VOLUME II - PRICE (SEED PROJECT AND LABOR/OH&P).

Evaluation Process: The Government will evaluate the Labor and Overhead and Profit costs proposed by offerors for the first 5-year period of the MACC to determine whether estimates are complete, balanced and reasonable. Price re-determination will be made for the second 5-year period of the contract requesting contractors to validate and re-determine their prices in accordance with the terms indicated in the Ordering Procedures, Par. 4.

The proposed labor costs will serve as a benchmark to validate the average labor rates calculated and applied to Task Order-level proposals (including the proposal submitted for the seed project). These rates are fixed and not open to modification or negotiation for the life of the MACC contract other than the 5-year period price re-validation that will be re-negotiated and evidenced with a contract modification. For Task Order proposals, offerors will determine the hourly labor rates based on the estimates provided for the 5-year periods of the MACC, using the annual rates outlined in the Labor/OH&P cost estimate.

The Government retains the right to request detailed breakdowns to evaluate offers or individual work items associated with Task Order pricing.

Overhead and Profit percentages submitted may be negotiated at the TO level depending on project magnitude and complexity, with a maximum variation of 3 percentage points in respect to what is submitted in the Labor/OH&P Form.

The Government will separately evaluate the total price proposed for the seed project to determine whether prices are complete, balanced, and reasonable for the work to be performed. Incomplete proposed prices, either initially proposed or updated later as a result of discussions (in case discussions are conducted) may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement. Only EURO currency offers will be accepted.

The offeror’s price proposal for the seed project will not be assigned a rating, but will be evaluated for completeness, price reasonableness, and balance as follows:

M.3.3.1 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.3.3.2 Price Reasonableness and Balance. 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 whether the price is reasonable and balanced. Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated. The offerors whose Total Evaluated Price (TEP- that is the prices evaluated on Attachment 12 Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown –Seed Project and Attachment 13 Labor/OH&P Cost Estimate Breakdown) is determined to be unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 may not be considered for award. 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 data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.3.4 VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE.

M.3.4.1. Evaluation Process: The Government’s past performance evaluation team will evaluate offerors’ past performance to determine the probability of successful performance under the MACC program. The recency, relevancy, and quality of the information provided in the contractor’s past performance will be considered based on the requirements of Table L-3 Past Performance Project Values and Characteristics. Each proposal will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described in Table M-5 below at the end of the past performance evaluation.

M.3.4.1.1. Recency. Past Performance information will be assessed to determine if it is recent. This standard is met when the contractor submits a minimum of four (4) projects that meet the following minimum criteria: Recent construction projects are those that were performed or are currently being performed within the last five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation. In case the offeror provides documentation for an ongoing effort, this must have begun at least six (6) months prior to the issue date of this solicitation and be 50% or more complete.

M.3.4.1.2. Relevancy. Past Performance Information will be assessed to determine if it is relevant to this requirement.

This standard is met when the contractor submits a minimum of four (4) projects that are similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude as defined below.

Scope: Broad range of new construction and repair, design-build, or design-bid-build, general building renovation involving civil, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, HVAC, communication, road and pavement, and every other engineering work item and/or general environmental work including, but not limited to, incidental minor construction, excavation, plumbing, demolition, electrical, structural, mechanical, concrete work, and environmental (hazardous waste abatement and disposal) remedial work demonstrating offeror’s adequate organizational capability and experience to meet the MACC Statement of Work (SOW) requirements.

Complexity: Complexity is defined as a construction project or design work where multiple disciplines and trades are required or represented.

Magnitude: Submitted past performance projects must meet the following minimum requirements:

1. One (1) construction project with a contract value of €258,000.00 or less.

2. *Two (2) construction project with a contract value between €500,000.00 and €2,582,000.00

3. *One (1) design/build project with a contract value between €1,000,000.00 and €2,582,000.00

4. Completed by the offeror, as specified in L.7.1.(c).

5. Two of the projects performed must have been completed within the Republic of Italy.

*NOTE: Offerors can utilize the same project for numbers 2 and 3.

Following evaluation of each submitted past performance projects, a single overall recency and relevancy rating is assigned. The Government will use degrees of relevancy as outlined in Table M-4:

Table M-4 Adjectival Rating

Description

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.3.4.1.3. Performance Quality Assessment. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends (i.e.

offeror’s history of adhering to schedules including the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction, etc.), and usefulness of the information. These elements will be incorporated into the performance confidence assessment. In assessing quality past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Volume (Volume III). Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s CPARS, and the System for Award Management (SAM). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources to include, interviews with Program Managers, Past Performance Information (PPI) points of contact, Contracting Officers, and/or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data was determined as recent and relevant by the SSA.

b) Quality Assessment of Submitted Contracts: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, and relevant references. Each recent contract with a relevance rating higher than "Not Relevant" will be assessed for quality. Not Recent or Not Relevant contracts will not be assessed. The quality assessment will consist of an in-depth evaluation of the following, in order of importance:

i. Data obtained from CPARS

ii. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) received from offeror’s POCs (See Attachment 5)

iii. Any other data obtained by the Government

For any submitted contract where more than one quality assessment above is present, the higher-tier assessment will be the only one considered, e.g. if both CPARS and PPQ are available, only CPARS will be used. Any additional project included in the evaluation, but not submitted by the offeror, will be assessed as if it were submitted by the offeror (Recency, Relevance, Quality).

c) Adverse Past Performance: The Performance 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 shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information (see FAR 15.306(a)(2)). Contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including, the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

M.3.4.2. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the Recency, Relevancy, and Performance Quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating outlined in Table M-5.

Table M-5 Adjectival Rating Definition

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 required effort.

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 [FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)].

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.

Note: A Substantial Confidence rating is considered worth more than a Satisfactory Confidence rating. Substantial and Satisfactory Confidence ratings may be considered worth more than Neutral Confidence rating IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

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