Attachment_6_-_Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_For_Award.pdf

Multiple Award Contract for Small Purchase Orders 11 June 2019 Hanscom Air Force Base, MA Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

2.2 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

2.3 FACTOR 3 – GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY

3.2 FACTOR 4 – PRICE

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

As identified and explained in Section L, this solicitation is being conducted in accordance with FAR 13 –

Simplified Acquisition Procedures. All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation factors listed in Paragraph 2. The Government may conduct interchanges with some, none, or all

Offerors at its discretion. The Government reserves the right to select the most highly qualified Offers based on the proposal, as received, without discussions. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. No more than ten (10) Offerors will be selected for an ID/IQ award.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part

9.1, 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 be the best value to the Government.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

When determining the offerors selected for an ID/IQ award, evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The evaluation factors other than price (Factors

1, 2, and 3) are of equal importance. The Government will determine which offerors are the most highly qualified based on the following evaluation factors:

2.1 FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

2.1.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of recent, relevant experience of the prime contractor on a range of general construction projects. Recent experience includes projects underway or those completed and turned over within 5 years of the RFP issue date. Examples of relevancy include projects of similar size, type, scope of work, complexity, and location. Experience identified in the

Specialized Experience Forms (Section L Attachments 1) will receive more consideration than experience provided in the supplemental narrative. The Government will place greater importance on projects performed as a prime contractor than as a subcontractor.

The agency will give more consideration to the following:

a) A higher number of relevant projects as the Prime contractor, up to a maximum of five each.

b) Projects showing experience with a variety of general construction efforts.

c) Projects performed on Military installations.

d) Projects performed in the New England region.

d) Fully completed projects, rather than substantially complete projects.

e) Projects completed within 5 years of this solicitation date.

2.1.2 The Government reserves the right to verify the experience record of cited projects or other recent projects by reviewing the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), other

DOD or Government appraisal systems or to interview owners or references. The Government may check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

2.1.3 To receive credit for extent (amount) of experience, the Offeror shall demonstrate a history of recent, relevant experience.

2.1.4 The Government will assess and rate the relevancy of recent projects accomplished by the offeror to the scope of this contract. The past performance relevancy ratings are described below:

Adjectival Rating Description

Highly Relevant Present/past performance effort performed in New England involving similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort performed outside of New England involving similar 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.

2.2 FACTOR 2 ‐ PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

2.2.1 The Government will perform a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the contract requirements, considering the degree of success offeror’s recent

(underway or turned over no longer than five (5) years preceding the date of this solicitation), relevant experience. The Government will assess the past performance on projects submitted under Factor 1 and reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal and/or to review other recent projects rated in CPARS or other agency performance databases, review and/or contact offeror‐furnished references, or to review personal knowledge.

2.2.2 The Government will next consider how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The

Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor performance. With respect to relevancy, past performance on projects with more relevance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment rating than past performance on projects of lesser relevance. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate past performance of the division or unit submitting the offer. Owners/references may be asked to comment on items such as quality, timeliness, management of the work, subcontractor management, including timely payment to subs or suppliers, safety, relations between owner and designer or contractor, level of support for such things as as‐built documentation, O&M manuals, training, correcting errors, warranty work, etc. The Government will target areas covered in the requirements of this proposal including records of confirming to quality, schedule, cost control, customer satisfaction, level of support for such things as as‐built documentation, O&M Manuals, training, problem resolution for errors, warranty work, and safety. The Government will not release the Interview Forms to the

Offeror at any time, in order for the Government to solicit candid, unbiased interview comments. The

Government places a higher value on projects that document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, for example, but not limited to telephone databases, offeror‐furnished references, or personal knowledge. The rating for this factor will be expressed as a degree of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the contract requirements. The rating system used for the performance confidence assessment is described below.

Adjectival Rating Description

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. If the Government does not obtain past performance information for the projects identified by the offeror and cannot establish a past performance record for the offeror through other sources, past performance will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance confidence assessment will be considered “Neutral Confidence”.

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.

2.3 FACTOR 3 – GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY

2.3.1 The government will evaluate the Offeror’s geographical proximity to Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts

Adjectival Rating Description

Exceptional The offeror’s primary office is located within 60 miles of Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts

Very Good The offeror’s primary office is located outside of 60 miles but within the New England region.

Satisfactory The offeror’s primary office is located in the United States.

3.2 FACTOR 4 – PRICE

Price is significantly less important than evaluations factors other than price. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis.

DEFINITIONS USED IN ASSESSING EVALUATION FACTORS

Strength: A strength is an aspect of the proposal that has merit or exceeds stated requirements and evaluation standards of the solicitation in a way that is beneficial to the Government for the purpose of this particular acquisition.

Weakness: A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Significant Weakness: A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A combination of weaknesses in a single factor can equate to a significant weakness.

Deficiency: A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.