Attachment_6_-_Section_M,_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTOR FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARDS

This is a competitive, best value source selection for the Front Range Multiple Award Construction Contract (FRMACC) which will be based off of a Subjective Trade-off within the performance confidence assessment rating under Past Performance factor. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at http://www.acquisition.gov/far.

The Government seeks to award up to ten (10) contracts (See Section M, para D for breakdown) to the highest rated qualified offerors whose proposals were determined responsive, responsible, and provided the best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision based on the source selection team’s evaluations of the subfactors.

The best value is represented by the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet the Government’s requirements, all subfactors considered, and in accordance with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria. For the purpose of this solicitation, a qualified offeror is defined as the highest rated offeror (for each tier) who submits a proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation.

B. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

In accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions or proposal revisions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Clarifications conducted with regard to past performance relevance, adverse past performance not previously addressed, or minor or clerical errors in the proposal volume shall not constitute discussions.

Therefore, it is imperative that each offeror submit their best past performance information.

C. PROPOSAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Upon receipt of proposals, all offeror proposals will be evaluated IAW the following steps:

Step 1. Proposals received will be placed in the tier level identified within the offeror’s proposal.

Step 2. Within each tier level, proposals will be evaluated for responsiveness and past performance.

a. Responsiveness

To be eligible for award, the offeror’s proposal must be received timely and deemed responsive in that the proposal meets all requirements of the solicitation; conforms to all required terms and conditions; includes all required representations and certifications; and acknowledges all amendments, if applicable. Further, offerors should ensure the following information is included or updated as needed:

DRAFT

http://www.acquisition.gov/far

i. Past Performance Proposal Volume: The offeror must submit the Past Performance Proposal Volume in accordance with the format specified in Section L Instructions to Offerors.

ii. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: The NAICS code for this acquisition is 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, with a small business size standard of $36.5 million. The offeror, at the time of proposal submission, must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) for this NAICS code.

An offeror’s proposal deemed non-responsive may not be evaluated further.

b. Factor 1 - Past Performance

Past performance will be evaluated based on recency, relevancy, and quality to determine an overall confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance Factor.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the FRMACC effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of present and past performance in providing construction/design services that met the customers’ needs, including cost and schedule.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Proposal volume as well as information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQs), 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 similar systems, interviews with Program Managers, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Point of Contacts (POCs), COs, Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and/or commercial sources or other data bases.

The evaluation review may result in positive or adverse findings.

The offerors’ past performance information will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality.

i. Recency

An evaluation of the past performance information will be completed to determine if the project is recent. To be determined recent, a project must be ongoing or completed within the past three (3) years from the date of solicitation issuance (SF 1442 Block 3) and which includes at least 65% of documented performance during the three-year period. This includes projects awarded prior to this period, but still had performance during the recency timeframe. Recent projects that show concurrency will have greater consideration during the confidence assessment determination.

Recent references will be given a relevancy rating in accordance with Table 1.

TABLE 1 – RECENCY

RATING DESCRIPTION

Recent A project must be ongoing or completed within the past three (3) years from the date of solicitation issuance (SF 1442 Block 3) and which includes at least 65% of documented performance during the three-year period.

Not Recent A project that is not ongoing or completed within the past three (3) years from the date of solicitation issuance (SF 1442 Block 3) or does not include at least 65% of documented performance during the three-year period.

Past performance information that is not recent will not be evaluated further.

ii. Relevancy

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance information to determine: scope, magnitude, and complexity. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Two subfactors will be evaluated for relevancy. The relative order of importance for these subfactors is, Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2.

i. Subfactor 1 - Disciplines

ii. Subfactor 2 - Design-Build

Greater consideration during the confidence assessment determination will be given to projects that show: performance as a prime versus a subcontractor; higher dollar value; diversity; and/or complexity. A rating will be assigned based on the criteria identified in Table 2.

TABLE 2 - RELEVANCY MATRIX

SUBFACTOR

VERY RELEVANT

RELEVANT

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

NOT

RELEVANT

Disciplines

To be considered very relevant, the offeror must show in a single citation, experience in a construction project over $500K which involves civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, and architectural disciplines.

To be considered relevant, the offeror must show in a single citation, experience in a construction project over $500K which involves civil, electrical, mechanical, and architectural disciplines.

To be considered somewhat relevant, the offeror must show in a single citation, experience in a construction project over $500K which involves civil, electrical, and mechanical disciplines.

To be considered not relevant, the offeror must show in a single citation, experience in a construction project:

a. less than $500K or

b. does not involve civil, electrical, and mechanical disciplines.

Design-Build

To be considered very relevant, the offeror must show in a single citation, experience in a 100% design-build construction project, over $500K.

To be considered relevant, the offeror must show in a single citation, experience in a 65% design-build construction project, over $500K.

To be considered somewhat relevant, the offeror must show in a single citation, experience in a 35% design-build construction project, over $500K.

To be considered not relevant, the offeror does not show in a single citation, experience in a design-build construction project, over $500K.

Past performance information that is not relevant will not be evaluated further.

iii. Quality

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 projects; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past projects. The Government will only evaluate quality on past performance projects determined recent and have relevancy.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other documented sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror. Particular attention will be paid to the following areas, which are addressed in the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 11): project management; technical performance; schedule;

safety/labor compliance; customer satisfaction; change and cost control management; and quality control program.

TABLE 3 – QUALITY

Exceptional The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractor’s performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective action taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance 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.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problems for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a score.

iv. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessment. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance on individual projects similar to the FRMACC shall be considered.

The past performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Greater consideration during the confidence assessment determination will be given to projects that show: concurrency, performance as a prime versus a subcontractor; higher dollar value; diversity; complexity; and/or contains any of the following unique considerations:

- Secure Facilities (e.g., SCIF, Banks, etc.) - Missile Alert Facility

- Schools (e.g., Grade, University, etc.) - Historical Preservation

- Survivability Systems (e.g., Blast valves/doors), springs and dampers, HEMP shielding, etc.)

Once all past performance information has been evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality, the Government will assign the offeror an overall past performance confidence assessment rating IAW Table 4 and the steps below.

TABLE 4 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Step 3. Based on the performance confidence assessment rating, the source selection team will first rank all substantially confident offerors within each tier from highest to lowest to determine the contracts to be awarded in accordance with Section M, para D. If there are not enough substantially confident offerors, then the source selection team will rank all satisfactory confident offerors to determine the remaining contracts to be awarded. Only offerors who receive a substantial or satisfactory performance confidence assessment rating are eligible for award.

Step 4. Once the contracts to be awarded are determined from Step 3, the source selection team will only evaluate those potential awardees for responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104. Responsibility will be determined in accordance with FAR 9.105 and the following criteria:

a. Contractor Financial Form: The offeror must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

b. Payment and Performance Bond: The offeror must provide assurance of bonding in the amount of $10M (aggregate value).

If found non-responsible, the CO will comply with FAR 19.6 Certificates of Competency and Determination of Responsibility.

D. CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award a target of up to four (4) FRMACC IDIQ contracts in Tier 1 and up to two

(2) FRMACC IDIQ contracts in Tier 2 to qualified offerors with an effective date as of the date of award.

IDIQs with an effective date are immediately available for competing on task order solicitations. In addition, up to two (2) FRMACC IDIQ contracts will be awarded in each tier for “on-ramping” purposes with an effective date of “To Be Determined (TBD).” No performance will be allowed on a FRMACC IDIQ contract with a TBD date. Once the Government establishes an effective date, the FRMACC IDIQ TBD contract(s) will be modified. The Government shall review each effective awardee at least annually and prior to making any FRMACC IDIQ contract effective, or as otherwise determined useful, for standard contractor responsibility criteria as described in FAR Part 9.104. The Contracting Officer may, at their discretion, off-ramp the effective or TBD FRMACC IDIQ awardee(s) who do not meet the responsibility criteria.

All offerors awarded a contract as a result of this solicitation will be for a five (5) year program ordering period, a two (2) year option ordering period, and a six (6) month extension of services option ordering period. At the time of award, all effective awardees will be issued a task order to meet the minimum guaranteed amount of $5,000, subject to the availability of funds. TBD awardees will not be issued a task order for the minimum guarantee until their contracts have been modified to make them an effective awardee.