Attach 14 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award_28 Feb 22.pdf

FA300221R0012

Attachment 14

28 Feb 22 Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1.1 Basis for Award:

M.1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M.1.3 This acquisition is a competitive, 100% small business set-aside, best value, subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition website, https://acquisition.gov. A contract will be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 as supplemented, and whose:

(1) Proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is a Small Business;

(2) Proposed technical subfactors receive a rating of “Acceptable” for Subfactors 1, 2, and

3, and a rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, or “Acceptable” for Subfactors 4 and 5;

(3) Proposal receives a Performance Confidence assessment rating of “Substantial

Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Neutral Confidence”;

(4) Proposed Price is determined fair and reasonable and balanced;

(5) Proposal provides evidence that the Offerors accounting system complies with all the requirements of DFARS 252.242-7006;

(6) Is determined to be responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1; and

(7) Proposal is determined by the SSA to represent the best value to the Government.

M.1.3.1 This is a subjective tradeoff source selection and, for those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between technical, past performance, and price, with technical and past performance being significantly more important than price, but price is a factor in the best value tradeoff. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, will be significantly more important than price. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and Subfactors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance, of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The Government may trade up from Technical/Risk Rating in Subfactors 4 and 5 of “Acceptable” or “Good” if the proposal is otherwise determined to be acceptable. The Government may trade up from a “Neutral Confidence” or from a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror that is rated as having “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.”

M.1.3.2 The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Keesler Base Operations Support (BOS) requirement. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors; therefore, the initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

M.1.3.3 While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (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. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors contained in this solicitation.

M.1.4 After initial evaluation of each Offeror’s Technical, Price and Past Performance, award may be made to the Offeror that represents the best value to the Government without entering into discussions. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Exchanges conducted IAW FAR 15.306(a)(1) and FAR 15.306(a)(2) will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer (CO) reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revisions.

M.1.4.1 The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If an Offeror’s proposal is determined to no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of an elimination decision will be provided to unsuccessful Offerors IAW FAR 15.503. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request to receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Pre-Award Debriefing of Offerors or FAR 15.506, Postaward Debriefing of Offers.

M.1.4.1.1 If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range and hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions submitted to the Government in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

M.1.4.1.2 After conclusion of discussions and receipt of FPRs, the Government will make award to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

M.1.5 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements IAW Section L 5.10. The Government reserves the right to determine any proposed exceptions unacceptable.

M.1.6 Accounting System. An adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion.

However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror that provides evidence their accounting system complies with all the requirements in DFARS 252.242-7006. An offeror who fails to provide evidence their accounting system complies with all the requirements in DFARS 252.242-7006 may be deemed non-responsible.

M.1.7 Pre-award Survey. A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is determined responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1. In determining contractor responsibility, the CO may require the assistance of DCMA to perform a Pre-Award Survey.

M.2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors for Award:

M.2.1 Selecting an Offeror for award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against three primary factors as outlined in Table M.1, Factors and Subfactors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Factors and Subfactors are detailed below. A proposal that does not meet the requirements of the solicitation may not be eligible for award.

M.2.2 A team of Government personnel will evaluate proposals. The content of written proposals, as well as information derived from discussions/ negotiations, if discussions are held, will be evaluated to determine the Technical acceptability or unacceptability of an Offeror’s ability to supply the services that meet the user’s needs.

M.2.3 Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and Subfactors for award. Proposals will not be compared or measured against each other during the initial evaluation. The Government’s Technical evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and other factors identified in the solicitation.

Table M.1 - Factors and Subfactors

Factor and Subfactors Criteria Description Factor 1

Subfactor 1 (A/U) Subfactor 2 (A/U) Subfactor 3 (A/U) Subfactor 4 (Tradeoff) Subfactor 5 (Tradeoff)

Technical Technical Approach Program Management and Staffing Approach Performance Management / Quality Control (QC) Approach Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Approach Engineering and Design Approach

Factor 2 Past Performance Factor 3 Price

M.2.4 Relative Order of Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical is more important than Past Performance or Price.

Past Performance is more important than Price. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price, however, Price is a factor in the best value tradeoff. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactors 1 through 3 will be evaluated using Acceptable/Unacceptable (A/U) ratings and will not be included in the tradeoff process. Subfactors 4 and 5 are equal in importance. In order for Subfactors 4 & 5 to be evaluated, an Offeror must receive an Acceptable rating in Subfactors 1 through 3.

M.3 Evaluation of Offeror’s Proposal:

M.3.1 Factor 1 – The Technical Factors and Subfactors, listed in Table M.1 above will be evaluated using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, as shown below in Tables M.2 and M.3 below. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the Offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, under Factor 1 the Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” to Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 (see Table M.2 below) and a rating of “Outstanding” (Blue), “Good” (Purple), “Acceptable” (Green), “Marginal” (Yellow), or “Unacceptable” (Red) to Subfactors 4 and 5 (see Table M.3 below). If any Subfactor 1 - 5 is determined to be technically unacceptable, then the Technical proposal will be determined technically unacceptable.

M.3.2 Technical/Risk Subfactor 4 and 5 - Evaluation of these subfactors shall focus on meeting the Government's requirements, and any strengths, deficiencies, risks, and weaknesses of the Offeror's proposal using the color ratings in Table M.2 and M.3 below. The Government will favorably consider proposed innovations and efficiencies in cost, schedule, and performance that are of benefit to the Government, and can be made contractually

Table M.2 – Technical Rating (Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 only)

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation binding. To support the Government's determination of a benefit, the Offeror may discuss any cost advantages that may or may not appear in the price proposal.

M.3.2.1 If an Offeror's proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this will be considered a deficiency in the Offeror's proposal and the proposal may be rendered ineligible for award.

M.3.2.2 The Government will determine whether those aspects of the proposal are Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable, using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method in Table M.3 and the Technical/Risk Rating Method in Table M.2, as shown below.

The technical ratings will document the evaluation of the quality of the Offeror's technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement for Subfactors 4 and 5.

M.3.2.3 Technical/Risk - Subfactor 4 and 5 will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures Technical Ratings Table M.3 below. The combined technical/risk rating will consider risk (with weaknesses & significant weaknesses) in conjunction technical (with meets, strengths, and deficiencies) in determining technical ratings.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets, exceeds or does not meet the threshold performance or capability requirements. The risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. A strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness means a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. 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 contract performance to an unacceptable level. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of minimum PWS requirements. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets/exceeds the Technical subfactor requirements. These subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Table M.3 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (Subfactors 4 and 5)

Color Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of an unsuccessful performance is low.

Table M.4. Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness (es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

NOTE: A separate Risk Rating will not be given for subfactors 4 and 5. This table only defines the risk levels to allow the color rating to be determined for those subfactors.

M.3.3 Evaluation of Technical Factor (Factor 1)

M.3.3.1 Subfactor 1 –Technical Approach:

M.3.3.1.1 This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach:

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

a) Demonstrates an acceptable, comprehensive plan for providing the processes and procedures required to perform the Keesler Mission Support Services requirement on a Federal Government installation to include all functions of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Offeror demonstrates how they will perform all functions in PWS Section 2 (All Services), PWS Section 13 (Grounds), PWS Section 15 (Vertical Transport Equipment), and PWS Section 28 (Community Services) and provides a detailed approach that demonstrates how they will perform all the functions in PWS Section 10 (Installation Management), PWS Section 11 (Operations Management), PWS Section 12 (Installation Engineering), Section 14 (Emergency Management), PWS Section 23 (Supply/Logistics), PWS Section 30 (Human Resources), and PWS Section 32 (Weather Services).

Note: Address the paragraph(s) of Sections 2 and 11 or any other PWS section specifically mentioned in Subfactors 2-5 in that subfactor, but address all other paragraphs of Sections 2 and 11 or any other PWS section NOT specified mentioned in Subfactors 2-5 in this Subfactor).

b) Demonstrates an acceptable comprehensive plan to manage, update, and configure legacy systems and/or replacement systems that includes a communication plan between the Offeror and Government personnel. (PWS Section 2 – All Services para 2.1.20)

c) Demonstrates the capability to manage Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) projects. (PWS Section 11 – para 11.1.1.2.32.1)

d) Demonstrates the capability to effectively provide preventative maintenance. (PWS

Section 11 – Operations Management)

e) Provides an acceptable comprehensive strategy for optimally forecasting use and requirements for real property assets, to ensure requirements are understood and incorporated into real property planning, construction, and renovation. The strategy also described an acceptable planning approach for ensuring the function of assets from a training and operational mission perspective. Provides an acceptable comprehensive strategy demonstrated how they would handle areas of personal safety hazards on all of base property; physical security breaches; inability of aircraft to take off or land at the airfield at any time; large scale property damage or data loss for an organization; inability to collect and disseminate critical time-sensitive information; and an installation-wide loss of a widely used service such as power, water, waste-water, and storm-water etc.

(PWS Section 12 - Installation Engineering)

f) Demonstrates the capability to safeguard Government property, personnel, and the environment. An acceptable contingency plan that included how you will plan for contingencies (preparation, support, and cleanup in the event of natural disasters, which are a potential threat to the Keesler AFB community), was provided. (PWS Section 10 - Installation Management, PWS Section 11 - Operations Management, and PWS Section 12-Installation Engineering)

g) Demonstrates acceptable plan to provide the required vehicles and equipment required to perform all functions of the PWS (PWS Section 2.1.24 and all subparagraphs)

i. A completed Vehicle Matrix (Section J, Attachment 22)

M.3.3.2 Subfactor 2 - Program Management and Staffing Approach:

M.3.3.2.1 This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach:

a) Describes contractor teaming arrangements that clearly addresses organizational relationships and responsibility divisions between the prime contractor, joint venture(s), partnership, affiliates, subcontractor(s), etc. The cross-reference matrix provided clearly indicates which PWS areas the prime contractor, joint venture(s), partnership, affiliates, subcontractor(s), etc. will be performing. (Contractor Team Arrangements, FAR 9 Subpart 9.6)

b) Demonstrates an acceptable methodology for accomplishing work requirements identified in all sections of the PWS with the appropriate skills, equipment, and materials, in appropriate quantities, and at the appropriate time. Describes an acceptable plan for staff cross-utilization as well as your staffing plans for one-deep positions. The proposed organization structure and staffing levels demonstrated an understanding of all sections of the PWS, and demonstrated a plan to meet all PWS requirements. The proposed staffing approach demonstrates the needed flexibility to meet changing, unscheduled, urgent, and surge requirements. Demonstrates a defined organizational structure, including organizational charts and demonstrates adequate rationale for the proposed organization structure, to include roles and responsibilities for each organizational element, e.g., branch, work center, shop, were provided. (PWS Section 2 - All Services paras 2.1.2.2.6;

See each respective PWS Appendix J’s for Key Positions)

c) Describes an acceptable workforce composition broken out as follows which supports paragraphs (a) through (b) above, i.(a)-(i) below, and clearly demonstrates the capability to meet all PWS requirements (PWS Section 2 - All Services paras 2.1.2.2.6 and 2.1.2.2.9)

i. A completed Manpower Matrix (Section J, Attachment 17)

a. Number of full man-year equivalent hires (40-hour workweek).

b.Part-time or temporary man-year equivalent hires.

c. Specialty skills mix by shift to include weekends and holidays.

d.Manpower calculations to reflect the proposed number and percentage of direct, indirect, and overhead labor for the basic period and all option periods.

e. Plans for obtaining and maintaining personnel certification and licensing in critical areas per requirements in all PWS sections.

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

g.Total man-years for each contract period. NOTE: Do not include the total man -years pricing in the technical proposal – only the total man-years.

h.Anticipated lapse rate percentage (each contract period). (A lapse rate factor is comprised of pricing/manning figures to compensate for personnel turnover, excess sick leave, excess annual leave, etc.) NOTE:

A zero lapse rate is unreasonable 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.

i. Number of overtime man-hours.

ii. Planned manpower adjustments beyond contract start date, and provides a Minimum Team Complement strategy IAW the Environmental Management and Emergency Management requirements. (PWS Section 14 - Emergency Management)

d) Describes an acceptable approach for recruiting (both locally and nationally), training, qualifying, and certifying employees to sustain a qualified workforce throughout the life of the contract. Provided a complete and acceptable Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (See each respective PWS Appendix J for Key Positions) (Attachment 12) (Section 2 - All Services para 2.1.2.2.6)

e) Demonstrates that key positions will have the relevant experience and qualifications to effectively manage the services for which they will be responsible. (See each respective PWS Appendix J’s for Key Positions) (Section 2 - All Services para 2.1.2.2.5)

f) Describes how the Offeror will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in Attachment 1k, Mission Essential Contractor Services, dated 28 Feb 22, during periods of crisis IAW DFARS 252.237-7023 Continuation of Essential Contractor Services and 252.237-7024 Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services.

M.3.3.3 Subfactor 3 - Performance Management / Quality Control (QC) Approach:

M.3.3.3.1 This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach:

a) Describes an acceptable internal QC strategy that defines clear processes to effectively: a) identify, b) assess c) track, d) document deficiencies, trends and risks, e) develop and implement corrective actions and, f) analyze corrective action effectiveness without introducing unacceptable quality to the program or mission. The strategy included an acceptable performance management approach that ensures effective QC and customer relations through efficient processes, performance measurement, analysis, and data management. (PWS Section 2 - All Services para 2.1.2.6)

b) Provides a sufficient QC organization to evaluate compliance, document deficiencies, monitor corrective actions, ensure timely problem resolution, and address how problem recurrence issues will be prevented. (PWS Section 2 - All Services para 2.1.2.6)

M.3.3.4 Subfactor 4 – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Approach:

M.3.3.4.1 This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach at a minimum: (PWS Section 11 – Operations Management para 11.1.1.2.26, 11.1.1.2.27 and 11.1.1.2.29):

a) Demonstrates an acceptable comprehensive plan and strategy for maintaining and operating HVAC system, to include HVAC system monitoring using Energy Management and Control Systems (EMCS) and controls maintenance/operations.

b) Provides an acceptable detailed plan on how timely response to HVAC system outages will be handled while minimizing impact to the facility owner’s mission.

c) Describes best commercial practices, innovations, approach or strategies that may result in lower operation and maintenance costs or any other aspect of their proposal they believe has merit or exceeds the stated requirements for Subfactor 4, provides a benefit to the Government during contract performance standards, can be made contractually binding, and is IAW PWS Section 11 – Operations Management, and all provisions of the Clean Air Act.

M.3.3.5 Subfactor 5 – Engineering and Design Approach:

M.3.3.5.1 This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach:

Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan and strategy that demonstrates the capability to meet all Operations Engineering and Installation Engineering requirements (PWS Section 11 - Operations Management and PWS Section 12 - Installation Engineering) based on the following elements:

a) Labor. Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan and strategy that demonstrates the capability to organize and equip the Operations and Installation Engineering sections with full time professionally registered qualified architects and engineers in each of the required disciplines throughout the life of this contract.

b) Programming. Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan and strategy that demonstrates the capability to develop an Asset Management Project Program, determining project requirements, and developing programming documents consistent with Air Force requirements throughout the life of this contract.

c) Records Management. Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan and strategy that demonstrates the capability to generate, maintain, updating, and manage project documents within the approved data collection system consistent with Air Force requirements throughout the life of this contract.

d) Design. Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan and strategy that describes their standards and procedures for Design which meets all PWS requirements and Air Force regulations throughout the life of this contract.

e) Construction Management. Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan and strategy that describes their standards and procedures for Construction Management which meets all PWS requirements and Air Force regulations throughout the life of this contract.

f) Estimation. Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan and strategy that describes how they will generate project programming and project design cost estimates, which meet all PWS requirements and Air Force regulations throughout the life of this contract.

g) Describes best commercial practices, innovations, and/or cost reduction measures that would result in lower operation and maintenance costs in all facilities or any other aspect of their proposal they believe has merit or exceeds the stated requirements for Subfactor 5, provides a benefit to the Government during contract performance, can be made contractually binding, and maintains performance IAW all PWS requirements and Air Force regulations.

M.3.4 Evaluation of Past Performance (Factor 2)

M.3.4.1 Evaluation Process. Past performance will be evaluated as an indicator of an Offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully, and as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform successfully. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government assessing Offerors’s past performance history that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are like the solicitation requirements and the quality of the Offeror’s performance record. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS);

Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

M.3.4.2 Recency is defined as at least 12 months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The entire contract will be evaluated if there are 12-months of performance within the three (3) year recency window. Performance efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

M.3.4.2.1 Recency for Protégé Joint Ventures is defined as at least six (6) months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The entire contract will be evaluated if there are 6-months of performance within the six (6) year recency window. Performance efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

M.3.4.3 Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in the Solicitation. For each Past Performance effort submitted (no more than six (6) contracts), relevancy will be determined by the similarity to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexity of the Offerors’ performance.

Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Section M, Table M.5, IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Performance efforts that are determined to be Not Relevant will not be further evaluated.

M.3.4.4 The Government will use the past performance relevancy ratings and descriptions as outlined in Table M.5 below:

Table M.5 – Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

M.3.4.5 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. Offerors may have the opportunity to address adverse past performance information obtained from references i.e., PPQs on which the Offerors have not had a previous opportunity to comment, if that information makes a difference in the Government’s decision to include the Offeror in or exclude the Offeror from the competitive range. This allows the Offeror a fair opportunity to rebut any negative information that may not be due solely to the poor performance of the contractor, or that may not have been adequately resolved since the date of the information provided.

M.3.4.6 Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings: The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table M.6 IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, based on an Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract. The relevancy rating will be based on the scope, magnitude and complexity of up to six (6) recent contracts. As a result of the relevancy assessments and the quality of reported performance of the recent contracts evaluated.

Offerors will receive a past performance confidence rating at the factor level as outlined in table below:

Table M.6 - Past Performance Confidence Ratings

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 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 “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

M.3.5 Evaluation of Price (Factor 3)

M.3.5.1 The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal (Volume III), as required by Section L, as described below. Any other data provided by the Offeror within Volume III that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated. This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and price analysis will be performed to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable, and balanced IAW FAR 15.404-1.

M.3.5.2 Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by Section L, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW the proposal analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1 based on each Offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed shall correspond to the requirements of the PWS. If the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if after receipt of a proposal, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be requested to provide certified cost and pricing data IAW FAR 15.403 or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.3.5.3 Balanced Pricing: In addition, proposed unit prices will be evaluated for balanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Each Offeror’s price proposal should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate balance.

Additionally, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

M.3.5.4 The sum of all FFP CLINs, for the Base Period and each Option Period including Incentive Options and Mobilization, will form the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). All CLIN pricing shall be provided in Section B of the solicitation. However, Not-to- Exceed/Estimated Cost Reimbursable CLINs X037, X050-X051, and X070-X077 will not be evaluated for award decision purposes and, therefore, are not included in the TEP.

M.3.5.5 Completeness: Any Offeror who fails to comply with the criteria outlined in Section L, paragraph 4.0 and its subparagraphs may be considered ineligible for award.

M.3.5.6 The contract will also include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract for a period not to exceed six (6) months beyond the date the Option to Extend Services is exercised. In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend Services, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed (specifically for the period preceding the exercise of the Option to Extend Services) will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to the Option to Extend Services. The Option to Extend Services option rates will only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement.

M.3.5.7 The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, with the potential to extend the contract for a period up to seven years (base year plus four 1-year option periods and two possible 1-year incentive option periods). In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, the Government’s evaluation of price outlined herein will apply to all Options. The Option rates may only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement

(End of Attachment)