Attachment 10 - Section M Addendum.pdf

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Attachment 10

M-1- Section M

1.1 Basis For Contract Award: This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Price and Past Performance. The resulting contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) 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 seeks to award to the offeror who best meets and/or exceeds the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). 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.

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 requested information is Section L is included or updated as needed. An offeror’s proposal deemed non-responsive may not be evaluated further.

1.2. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the Simplified Acquisition for Base Engineering Requirements (SABER). However, the

Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3. Discussions: The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

M-2 EVALUTAION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors:

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the most advantageous combination to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the factors described below. The non-price factor is approximately equal in importance to Price.

Factor 1: Price Proposal

Factor 2: Past Performance

2.1.1. Factor 1, Volume I - Price Proposal: The price shall be complete, reasonable, and balanced. The Government reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from competition if unreasonable. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable and/or unbalanced may not be considered for award. The offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the solicitation. If the CO determines the offeror non-responsible, the CO will comply with FAR Subpart 19.6, Certificate of Competency and Determination of

Responsibility. Based on the offeror’s price proposal in Attachment 4 of the Request for Proposal (RFP), the estimated amounts per CLIN and the proposed Total Evaluated

Price (TEP) will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balanced pricing.

2.1.1.1. Completeness: The Government will evaluate completeness of the offeror’s submitted

Volume I – Price Proposal. Any proposal which fails to conform to the requirements or specification in the solicitation may be considered ineligible for award. Price Proposals should be complete and clear and not require additional explanation of information. Completeness is defined as competing Section B in its entirety CLINS 0001-0004, 10001-1004, 2001-2004, 3001-

3004, and 4001-4004 and completing the Price Schedule in its entirety to include Summary, Base year, Option Year One, Option Year Two, Option Year Three and Option Year Four. The

Government may make a final determination as to whether a proposal is acceptable or unacceptable based solely on the proposal as presented and submitted.

2.1.1.2. Reasonable:

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404.

Reasonableness will be based on an evaluation of the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be the total/sum of all proposed prices for separately priced contract line items for base plus four option years to include CLINS 0001-0004, 1001-1004, 2001-2004, 3001-3004, and 4001-4004.). Price reasonableness will include evaluating the offeror’s TEP. An assessment that the proposal is not reasonable will result in the offer being unacceptable for award. An offeror’s proposal shall represent the offeror’s best efforts to respond to the RFP. Price reasonableness will include evaluating the offeror’s TEP.

2.1.1.3. Balanced: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), the Government will evaluate

Attachment 4 of the RFP to determine if the proposed coefficient of one or more of the CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques.

The proposal may be rejected if it is determined to be unbalanced and as a result poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Offerors are encouraged to include explanatory notes regarding any fluctuations in coefficients that may otherwise be viewed as unbalanced.

2.1.2. Factor 2, Volume III - Past Performance: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture past performance. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past 5 years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The

Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort. 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 SABER effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of present and past performance in providing construction projects that met the customers’ needs, including cost and schedule.

2.1.2.1. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the

Government will employ several approaches.

2.1.2.1.1. 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 Present/Past Performance volume to include but not limited to Past Performance

Questionnaire. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s

Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining

Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

2.1.2.1.2. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to 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.

2.1.2.2. Recency Definition: 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 five years from the date of solicitation issuance (SF 1442

Section A, Block 3). 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 Recency Evaluation Method.

RATING DESCRIPTION

Recent A project must be ongoing or completed within the past 5 years from the date of solicitation issuance.

Not Recent A project that is not ongoing or completed within the past 5 years from the date of solicitation issuance.

2.2.2.3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided and/or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each

Past and Present Performance contract that has met the recency criteria. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance information to determine scope (broad range of 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, and performance at multiple locations, etc.) per the Statement of Work. Offeror will be given a relevancy rating in accordance with Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the Statement of Work and this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the Statement of Work and this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the Statement of Work and this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities the Statement of Work and this solicitation requires.

2.2.2.4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency and relevancy of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below in Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method.

Table 1. Recency Evaluation Method

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.