Attachment_6_-_Section_M,_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

Front Range Multiple Award Construction Contract (FRMACC)

RFP # FA251719RA016

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARDS

1. This is a competitive, best value source selection for the Front Range Multiple Award Construction

Contract (FRMACC). There will be two evaluation factors (Price and Past Performance), and although this is not a trade-off, past performance is significantly more important than price. Price will be evaluated on a pass or fail basis and past performance will be based on a subjective evaluation to derive a performance confidence assessment rating. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision based on the source selection team’s evaluation. The best value is represented by the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements of this solicitation. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective. Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) Source

Selection Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)

215.300, Scope of subpart, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, Source Selection, and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3, Source Selection. These regulations are available electronically at http://www.acquisition.gov/far.

3. The Government intends to award a maximum of ten (10) FRMACC indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts (See Section M, D.1. for details) to the highest-rated offerors whose proposals were determined responsive, responsible, and provided the best value to the Government.

B. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). 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 each offeror submit their best proposal information. However, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions, if determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

C. PROPOSAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Upon receipt of proposals, all offeror’s 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, offeror’s proposals will be evaluated for responsiveness, price, and past performance. Based on the evaluation of the offeror’s price and past performance, the Government will determine the number of IDIQ awards IAW Section M, D. Contracts To Be Awarded.

http://www.acquisition.gov/far

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. Furthermore, offerors should ensure the following information is included or updated as needed:

i. Proposal Volume: The offeror must submit the Proposal Volume IAW 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 $39.5M. 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 – Price

The purpose of the price evaluation is to assess the offeror’s ability to successfully propose fair and reasonable pricing for the FRMACC effort based on the offeror’s proposed fully-burdened hourly labor rates (includes direct salary, fringe benefit, overhead, general & administrative (G&A), and profit) for a Project Manager, Project Superintendent, and Quality Assurance Manager.

To evaluate this factor, the Government will use the offeror’s fully-burdened hourly labor rates contained in Attachment 11 to determine whether the offeror’s prices are fair and reasonable IAW one or more of the proposal analysis techniques found in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The price evaluation will be on a pass or fail basis. To pass, the offeror must propose fully-burdened hourly labor rates for a Project Manager, Project Superintendent, and Quality Assurance Manager that are determined fair and reasonable by the Government.

Only offerors’ proposals that pass Factor 1 - Price will be considered for Factor 2 – Past

Performance.

c. Factor 2 – Past Performance

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-build projects 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

Proposal Volume as well as information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Past Performance Questionnaires (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, PPQ

Point of Contacts (POCs), Contracting Officers (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.

Past performance will be evaluated based on recency, relevancy, and quality to determine subfactor confidence assessment ratings for Factor 2 - Past Performance.

i. Recency

An evaluation of each past performance information citation 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

Section A, 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 references will be given a relevancy rating IAW 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 Section A, 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 Section A, Block 3) and/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 (broad range of design-build and repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and minor construction projects on various real property);

magnitude (value of the task order/stand-alone contract); and complexity (multiple functions/trades, design-build, performance at multiple locations, etc.). 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.

Relevancy will be evaluated using two-phases.

Phase One:

For Phase One, the Government will use Attachment 12, Past Performance Citations –

Unique Areas to identify which past performance information citations include a unique area(s). Only those past performance information citations containing a unique area(s) will be evaluated using the information contained in the offeror’s Proposal Volume.

Past performance information citations that do not contain a unique area(s) will not be evaluated in Phase One. Phase One will be evaluated on a pass or fail basis IAW

Table 2. Only offerors’ proposals that pass Phase One will be considered for Phase

Two.

TABLE 2 – UNIQUE AREAS

PASS FAIL

Unique

Areas

At least three (3) of the different unique areas listed below were included in at least one or more of the citations submitted: Sensitive Compartmented

Information Facility (SCIF); schools

(grade school, university, training facility, etc.); survivability systems

(blast valve/door, springs and dampers, HEMP shielding, etc.); missile alert facility; and historical preservation

(listed in the National Register of

Historical Places).

At least three (3) of the different unique areas listed below were not included in at least one or more of the citations submitted: Sensitive Compartmented

Information Facility (SCIF); schools

(grade school, university, training facility, etc.); survivability systems

(blast valve/door, springs and dampers, HEMP shielding, etc.); missile alert facility; and historical preservation

(listed in the National Register of

Historical Places).

Phase Two:

For Phase Two, an evaluation of each past performance information citation will be completed to determine project relevancy. Two (2) 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

A rating will be assigned based on the criteria identified in Table 3.

TABLE 3 - RELEVANCY MATRIX

SUBFACTOR

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

RELEVANT

(R)

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

(SR)

NOT

RELEVANT

(NR)

Disciplines

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

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

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

To be considered not relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a design-build construction project:

a. less than 35% or

b. less than $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/ongoing projects; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed on those past/ongoing projects. Past performance of higher quality will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser quality. The

Government will only evaluate quality on past performance information that the

Government has determined recent and determined at least “Somewhat Relevant.”

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 addressed in Attachment 13, Past Performance Questionnaire: project management;

technical performance; schedule; safety/labor compliance; customer satisfaction; change and cost control management; quality control program; and overall performance.

Quality will be given a rating IAW Table 4.

TABLE 4 – QUALITY

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

Very Good (VG) The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some contractual requirements 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 (S) 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 (M) 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 (U) 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 (NA) Unable to provide a score.

iv. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

The assessment process will result in a subfactor performance confidence assessment rating as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and Table 5. IAW FAR

15.305(a)(2), Past performance evaluation, 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.

After the Government evaluates all past performance information for recency, relevancy, and quality, the Government will assign the offeror a past performance confidence assessment rating for each subfactor in accordance with Table 5, below. The relative order of importance for these subfactors is, Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor

2.

TABLE 5 – PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Substantial

Confidence

(SC)

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

(SAT)

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

(NEU)

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

(LC)

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

(NC)

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. The following ranking method will be used to determine which offerors will be awarded FRMACC

IDIQ contracts IAW Section M, D. Contracts To Be Awarded.

Within each tier level, offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on their relevancy and quality.

a. All offerors with a “Substantial Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 1 will be ranked, from highest to lowest, based on the Government’s evaluation of relevancy and quality.

b. If there are not enough offerors with a “Substantial Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 1, then the source selection team will rank all offerors with a “Substantial Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 2, from highest to lowest, based on the same method above, to determine the remaining contracts to be awarded.

c. If there are not enough offerors with a “Substantial Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 2, then the source selection team will rank all offerors with a “Satisfactory Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactors 1 and 2, from highest to lowest, based on the same method above, to determine the remaining contracts to be awarded.

d. Only offerors who receive a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance confidence assessment rating will be eligible for award.

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

a. Financial Information: 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 the CO determines the offeror non-responsible, the CO will comply with FAR Subpart 19.6, Certificates of Competency and Determination of Responsibility.

D. CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

1. The Government intends to award a maximum of ten (10) FRMACC IDIQ contracts, however, the

Government reserves the right to award more, less, or no contracts at all, if determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government intends to award a maximum of four (4) FRMACC IDIQ contracts in Tier 1 and a maximum of two (2) FRMACC IDIQ contracts in Tier 2 to the highest-rated offerors with an effective date as of the date of award. FRMACC IDIQs with an effective date are immediately available for competing on task order solicitations. In addition, a maximum of two (2)

FRMACC IDIQ contracts will be awarded in each tier for “on-ramping” purposes with an effective date of “To Be Determined (TBD).” Any contracts awarded in excess of the ten (10) FRMACC IDIQ contracts intended will be awarded as a TBD contract. 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, as well as each

FRMACC IDIQ TBD awardee at least annually and prior to making any FRMACC IDIQ TBD contract effective, or as otherwise determined useful, for standard contractor responsibility criteria as described in

FAR 9.104. The Procuring Contracting Officer may, at their discretion, off-ramp an effective or TBD

FRMACC IDIQ awardee(s) who does not meet the responsibility criteria.

2. All offerors initially awarded an effective contract as a result of this solicitation will be for a five (5) year 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 guarantee amount of $5K, subject to the availability of funds. FRMACC IDIQ 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.