FA3002-10-R-0059-0007.docx

FA3002-10-R-0059

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following changes were accomplished on Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award

· Page 6 of 9 see highlighted changes and new information.

· Paragraph B 2) b-e were deleted.

· Page 8 of 9, paragraph C, the last two sentences were deleted.

Volume III Past Performance Information due date is 15 Nov 2011

Volume I Price Proposal and Volume II Technical Proposal due date is 29 Nov 2011.

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. 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, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. These regulations are available electronically at the FAR website at http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1. This is a competitive Tradeoff Source Selection process where Past Performance is approximately equal to Price.

2. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors; however, the Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Price, Technical Capability and Past Performance. A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, 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 and sub-factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the past performance history of the higher price Offeror outweighs the difference in price. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in 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; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors as listed below: See Section L paragraph c(4) for Exceptions to Terms and Conditions.

C. Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors: The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the most advantageous proposal to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below:

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Technical Capability Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach Sub-factor 2: Mobilization Approach Sub-factor 3: Program Management and Staffing Approach Factor 3: Past Performance

1. Factor 1 – PRICE

a. PRICE REASONABLENESS. The Government will evaluate the price information submitted per Section L in Volume III, Price Proposal, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable based upon each Offeror’s proposed approach; a contract will only be awarded to an offeror whose price is determined reasonable. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

b. TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP). A TEP will be calculated for each Offeror as the sum of the extended total amounts for Firm Fixed Price CLINs X001 – X011 and 0016 for the base period and all option periods. The Not-To-Exceed Cost Reimbursable CLINs will not be included in the TEP. Each Offeror’s TEP will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for award decision purposes.

2. Factor 2 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: The Government will evaluate the technical proposals and assign ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

a. The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the sub-factors in (3) below, as they apply to the Performance Work Statement. The proposal shall effectively address any risks that are considered to have an adverse impact to cost, schedule and performance and effectively identify risk mitigating strategies in a detailed plan to eliminate or reduce the risk. Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions section of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each sub-factor a rating as shown in (2) below. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation.

b. The ratings consist of:

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

c. Description of Sub-factors:

1. Sub-factor 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH - This sub-factor evaluates the Offeror’s plan to sustain compliant contracted mission support with a trained workforce and in an environment that identifies and corrects deficiencies. The standard is met when:

a) The proposal provides an approach that adequately addresses how PWS requirements will be accomplished.

b) The proposal provides an approach that adequately addresses Contractor provided tools and equipment (acceptable quantity and type) to accomplish the requirement of the PWS.

c) The proposal provides an acceptable approach that addresses procedures to manage and update with accuracy AF CE legacy systems to include ACES, IWIMS, etc. to accomplish the requirements of the PWS.

d) The proposal provides an acceptable approach to meet the standards for managing the BASH program.

e) The Government will assess risk for this sub-factor. Risks that are considered to have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance may be deemed unacceptable.

2. Sub-factor 2: MOBILIZATION APPROACH - This sub-factor evaluates the Offeror’s mobilization approach and ability to be prepared to achieve full performance on the first day of contract operations without degrading the 325 FTW mission. The standard has been met when:

a) The proposal provides a detailed description that adequately addresses recruiting, training, certifying, and qualifying personnel during the 45-day mobilization period that results in a sufficient number of fully qualified employees by contract start date.

b) The proposal provides an adequate list of materials, equipment and vehicles (quantity/type) for which the service provider is responsible to provide and an effective plan to have referenced material and equipment available for use on the first day of the basic contract period.

c) The Offeror provides an effective time-line schedule with sound rationale, which addresses the start and completion of each event (e.g., interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, and start work dates).

d) The Government will assess risk for this sub-factor. Risks that are considered to have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance may be deemed unacceptable.

3. Sub-factor 3: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING APPROACH - This sub-factor evaluates the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed staffing by shift, skill classification and work unit for the basic contract period and all option years. The proposal must demonstrate an organizational structure that the company will employ while performing this effort. It must address lines of authority, details of onsite personnel by skill mix, function and numbers. The proposal must provide rationale used to develop the organizational structure. The standard has been met when:

a) The proposed organizational structure which shows Full or Part Time Equivalents is sufficient to accomplish the projected workload provided in the PWS detailed to the “shop/function” level and adequately explains how a qualified work force will be maintained.

b) The proposal demonstrates an adequate approach that will be used to develop, manage and execute an effective Recurring Work Program.

c) The proposal demonstrates an adequate approach to manage and maintain the power production, Industrial Control Systems (ICS), utility service, fire protection and airfield lighting systems.

d) The proposal demonstrates an acceptable approach to ensure compliance with Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Compliance Assessment Management Program (ESOHCAMP), Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), Fire Safety, and Health.

e) The proposal demonstrates an adequate approach to manage and meet energy standards.

f) The proposal demonstrates an adequate approach for continuous operations support to meet the mission during peacetime, contingency, and strike situations.

g) The proposal provides an adequate plan for continuous coverage of one-deep positions.

h) The proposal provides calculations and an acceptable rationale used to arrive at the proposed structure including productive hour calculations that correspond with the Attachment 6 “Manpower Matrix”.

i) The plan adequately describes how the offeror will use manpower with appropriate skill levels and skill mix, including workforce composition broken out as follows:

1. A completed Staffing/Manpower Matrix (Section J, Attachment 6).

2. Number of full time staff-month equivalents hires.

3. Part-time or temporary staff-year equivalent hires.

4. Specialty skill mix by Service Area.

5. Staffing calculations to reflect the proposed number and percentage of direct, indirect, and overhead labor for each option period.

6. Actual staff-years programmed to be in the workforce (each contract period) including lapse.

7. Total staff-years priced as indicated in the cost proposal. NOTE: The staff-years priced in the technical and cost proposals must match. If not, the cost proposal data will have precedence.

8. Anticipated lapse rate percentage (each contract period). A lapse rate factor is comprised of pricing/staffing figures to compensate for personnel turnover, excess sick leave, excess annual leave, etc.) NOTE: A zero lapse rate is unrealistic since it assumes that no employee will quit, retire, die, or require excess sick leave or annual leave without a trained replacement being in place.

9. Number of overtime staff-hours.

j) The proposal provides an adequate description of the teaming arrangements with any subcontractors or joint ventures including the organizational relationship and the responsibilities between the prime and subcontract employees.

k) The proposal adequately demonstrates a Quality Control organization, including lines of authority that will successfully evaluate compliance, find and document problems and monitor corrective actions ensuring successful and timely problem resolution and explains how recurring problems will be prevented.

l) The Government will assess risk for this sub-factor. Risks that are considered to have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance may be deemed unacceptable.

3. Factor 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE. The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the Offeror performed work relevant to the type of effort and type of requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

A. The Government will accomplish the past performance evaluation, assigning a performance confidence assessment rating to the Offeror’s proposal based on performance ratings of recent and relevant efforts.

B. The Government will seek relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the Offeror (using questionnaires, which are forwarded by the contracting officer to the contractor’s selected sources and (ii) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of this acquisition. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are not proposed to perform meaningful or critical aspects of the work may not be evaluated.

1. Recency is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years of the date of this solicitation, except that ongoing programs must have begun no less than three (3) months from issuance of the Request For Proposal (RFP).

1. Relevancy will be determined based on an integrated assessment of the offeror’s past performance as it relates to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. The definition of scope, magnitude, and complexity are:

1. Scope: Based on civil engineering efforts similar to those described in this solicitation.

1. Magnitude: Based on duration and contract dollar value for civil engineering operations similar to those described in this solicitation.

1. Complexity: Based on number and volume of primary PWS areas performed (maintenance and repair of facilities, infrastructure, real property and accountable real property installed equipment; this may also include Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC), plumbing and electrical maintenance and repair, fire suppression maintenance, airfield maintenance, work request management, security alarm, minor construction, and structural/roof maintenance.

1. The Government will give greater consideration to performance on those contracts deemed more relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. Additional unique Civil Engineering Support Services requirements relevant to this solicitation can be found in the PWS, technical orders and Air Force Instructions. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings table below (Para 3(d)). Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror. Past performance efforts of major/key personnel, or subcontractors will be considered as “Relevant” or “Not Relevant” only. An Offeror with no recent/relevant performance history, or one whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

Relevancy Ratings

1. Performance information may be obtained from the references on each project submitted. The Government may also obtain performance data from other sources.

1. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets basic contract PWS and technical requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the Offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs adhering to schedules, (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

1. Where a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

1. The following performance definitions will be used in the assessment of performance:

Performance Ratings

Exceptional (E)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Very Good (VG)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

Satisfactory (S)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Marginal (M)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) all contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory (U)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

d) The Government will integrate the recency, relevancy and performance on the efforts evaluated for the Offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or whose performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating of “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The integration will result in a performance confidence assessment rating described below:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

C. After initial evaluation of each offer, if the lowest priced, responsible, technically “Acceptable” offer (by TEP) is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” past performance assessment, and has a reasonable price, the SSA will determine if it is in the government’s best interest to award to that Offeror without discussions.

D. If the Government elects to conduct discussions, a competitive range will be established IAW FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. Only those Offeror’s deemed “Acceptable” in all Technical sub-factors, after discussions and final evaluation, are eligible for award. These Offerors’ proposals will be ordered from lowest price to highest price. If the lowest reasonably priced, technically “Acceptable” Offeror is rated as “Substantial” confidence, the SSA will award to this Offeror, providing all other criteria for award are met. If the lowest priced Offeror does not satisfy this criteria, then the SSA will review the past performance ratings of the next lowest priced, in-turn, Offerors and may make an integrated award decision. The Government reserves the right to make award, or not make award, to a higher priced, higher rated Offeror.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf