Attachment 6- SCMACC Section M.pdf

Space Coast Multiple Award Construction Contract (SCMACC)

RFP# FA252120R0009

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARDS

1.1. This is a competitive, best value source selection for the Space Coast Multiple Award Construction Contract (SCMACC). 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 for fair and reasonableness 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 board 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.

1.2. 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.

1.3. The government intends to award up to ten SCMACC indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts (See Section M, 3.4.1. for details) to the highest-rated offerors whose proposals were determined responsive, responsible, and provided the best value to the government based on past performance and price.

M-2 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.

M-3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

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

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, 3.4., contracts to be awarded.

http://www.acquisition.gov/far

3.1 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.

3.2 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 SCMACC 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, Health and Safety Manager, and Quality Control Officer.

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).

All prices shall remain effective through the life of the corresponding contract and may only be changed through updates to the Construction Wage Determination at the time of option renewal.

3.3 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 SCMACC 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.

3.3.1. 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 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 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 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.

3.3.2. 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. Only those past performance citations greater than $500,000 will be evaluated in Phase One. 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. Four citations are required for the disciplines and two are required for design-build. Only offerors’ proposals that pass Phase One will be considered for Phase Two.

TABLE 2 – UNIQUE AREAS

PASS FAIL

Unique Areas

At least six of the different unique areas listed below are included in at least four of the citations submitted: Asbestos and hazardous metal management/abatement, HVAC renovation and controls, utility installation and repair requiring trenching and horizontal directional drilling, low and medium voltage installation, potable and non-potable water system installation and repair, land clearing with invasive species remediation, repairs and upgrades to waste water plants to include SCADA controls, paving to include roads for heavy vehicles, mold/mildew remediation and cleanup, historic preservation or artifact restoration, hurricane response/recovery, and demonstrate efficient construction management practices and flexibility while construction activities are constrained by customer mission requirements.

Fewer than six of the different unique areas listed below were not included in at least four of the citations submitted:

Asbestos and hazardous metal management/abatement, HVAC renovation and controls, utility installation and repair requiring trenching and horizontal directional drilling, low and medium voltage installation, potable and non- potable water system installation and repair, land clearing with invasive species remediation, repairs and upgrades to waste water plants to include SCADA controls, paving to include roads for heavy vehicles, mold/mildew remediation and cleanup, historic preservation and launch artifact restoration, hurricane response/recovery, and demonstrate efficient construction management practices and flexibility while construction activities are constrained by customer mission requirements.

Phase Two:

For Phase Two, an evaluation of each past performance information citation will be completed to determine project relevancy. Both 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 at least four of the six disciplines: civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, environmental, 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 at least two of the six disciplines: civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, environmental, 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 at least one of the six disciplines:

civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, environmental, and architectural disciplines.

To be considered not relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a construction project involves zero disciplines: civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, environmental, and architectural 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 which involves at least three of the six disciplines: civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, environmental, and architectural disciplines.

To be considered relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a 100% design-build construction project, over $500K which involves at least two of the six disciplines: civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, environmental, and architectural disciplines.

To be considered somewhat relevant, the offeror must show in a single past performance information citation, experience in a 100% design-build construction project, over $500K which involves at least one of the six disciplines:

civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, environmental, and architectural disciplines.

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 100% or

b. involves none of the disciplines: civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, environmental, and architectural disciplines.

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

3.3.3. 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.

3.3.4. 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 SCMACC 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 1. The following ranking method will be used to determine which offerors will be awarded SCMACC IDIQ contracts IAW Section M, D. Contracts To Be Awarded.

Offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on their relevancy and quality.

a. All offerors with a “Substantial Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 1 with a minimum a “Satisfactory Confidence” assessment rating in Subfactor 2 will be ranked, from highest to lowest, based on the government’s evaluation of relevancy and quality. Rankings will be based upon the government’s assessment of all past performance information available. Rankings are a subjective ranking by the government and therefore, final.

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”, “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Neutral Confidence” past performance confidence assessment rating will be eligible for award.

Step 2. Once the contracts to be awarded are determined from Step 1, 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.

3.4 CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

3.4.1. The government intends to award up to ten SCMACC IDIQ contracts; however, the government reserves the right to award less than the intended ten contracts or no contracts at all, if determined to be in the best interest of the government. The government intends to award SCMACC IDIQ contracts to the highest-rated offerors with an effective date as of the date of award, and known as the “active pool”. The highest rated offers will be those assigned a ranking by government evaluators as described in Step 1a., with the number one being the most highly rated. The ten highest rated offers will be eligible for an active award. The top four of the remaining pool will be eligible for a non-active awards. SCMACC IDIQs with an effective date are immediately available for competing on task order solicitations. In addition, up to four SCMACC IDIQ contracts will be awarded for “on-ramping” purposes with an effective date of “To Be Determined (TBD)”, and known as the “inactive pool”. Any contracts awarded in excess of the ten (10) SCMACC IDIQ contracts intended will be awarded as a TBD contract. No performance will be allowed on a SCMACC IDIQ contract with a TBD date. The government reserves the right to “activate” (on-ramp) a TBD contract to join the active pool when considered to be in the best interest of the government. Once the government establishes an effective date, the SCMACC IDIQ TBD contract(s) will be modified. The government shall review each effective awardee, as well as each SCMACC IDIQ TBD awardee at least annually and prior to making any SCMACC 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 MACC IDIQ awardee(s) who does not meet the responsibility criteria. On-ramping will be IAW Attachment 4a.

3.4.2. For all offerors initially awarded an effective contract as a result of this solicitation, the contract period will be a two year ordering period, an eight year option ordering period, and a six 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 $1K, subject to the availability of funds. SCMACC 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.