ATTACHMENT 9 - Section M Evaluation Factors.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and DoD Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation. Unless specifically identified in your proposal, 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. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined ineligible for award.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for this competitive acquisition. Award will be made to the technically acceptable Offeror with lowest evaluated price who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

1.3. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, offerors should submit proposals that represent their best efforts. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. In the event discussions are to be conducted, the competitive range will be established IAW FAR 15.306(c).

1.4. 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. Failure to comply with the solicitation’s instructions, or terms and conditions may result in the proposal not being evaluated for price or non-price factors; and 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.

1.5. Evaluation Process

Only offers that complied with all the solicitation requirements and instructions will then be evaluated in order starting with lowest offer based on initial assessment of Total Evaluated Price (TEP), followed by a full evaluation of technical acceptability of at minimum the lowest three TEP proposals. If the Government receives three (3) or fewer initial proposals all proposals will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. A price analysis will be conducted on the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal to determine price reasonableness. Award will be made to the lowest TEP proposal meeting the technical acceptability standards (contingent contractor’s responsibility determination). If award is to be made without discussion the evaluation factors and process to be used is listed below.

2.0 M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors.

In evaluating proposals, the Government will select the proposal that is the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer to the Government. The Government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors. To arrive at an award decision, each offer will be assessed in accordance with the following evaluation factors for the contract:

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Technical

Offerors are advised that their initial submission should be their best effort. Only technically acceptable proposals, either initially or as a result of discussions, are eligible for award. If award is made without discussions; proposal revisions will not be permitted. The Government will evaluate the proposals selected above for technical acceptability on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. For the technical proposal to be rated as “Acceptable”, the technical factor(s) and sub-factor(s) must be rated acceptable. If any technical sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable,” the overall proposal will be rated as “Unacceptable.”

2.2 Price Evaluation: The evaluated price shall be the total price proposed by the offeror in Section

B as supplemented by the Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown (Attachment 7). Proposals will then be ranked from lowest to highest based on evaluated price. The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition for this acquisition per FAR 15.403- 1(c)(1); therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). If at any time, however, during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or if price reasonableness cannot be determined; offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

2.3 Price Factor: Prices will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will be calculated by multiplying the quantities for CLIN 0001 by the CLIN’s unit price to determine the total amount for CLIN0001. The same calculation process will be used for any subsequent CLINs, including those marked as option. The total amount for CLIN0001 and all option CLINs will then be summed to equal the TEP. The TEP will be established on all proposals which will then be ranked from lowest to highest price.

The Government will conduct a Price Analysis on the lowest priced technically acceptable offer using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, to determine if it is reasonable and balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub line items appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4 Technical Evaluation: If the Government receives three (3) or more initial proposals the

Government will only select the three (3) lowest priced proposals and then evaluate them for Technical Acceptability. The Government reserves the right to evaluate additional proposals for technical acceptability if in the Government’s best interest. If additional proposals are evaluated for technical acceptability they will be selected in the order of total evaluated price. Technical evaluations will continue until the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal is identified.

The Government, at its discretion, may continue technical evaluations until the Contracting Officer determines that a sufficient number of technically acceptable proposals have been identified to permit determination of price fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition.

2.5 Technical Factor: For the purposes of technical evaluation, the term “offeror” will include any proposed teaming arrangements. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each factor. For the technical proposal to be rated as “Acceptable”, all technical factors and sub factors must be rated acceptable. If any technical factor or sub factor is rated “Unacceptable” the overall proposal will be rated as “Unacceptable”. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The technical proposal will be evaluated for the following technical factors and subfactors:

Technical Sub-Factor 1: Proposed Schedule and Project Narrative.

Description: Provide a proposed schedule that captures the major elements of work described in the statement of work, deliverables, and specifications to meet any other scheduled timelines for deliverables and complete the project at minimum within the allotted period of performance (or sooner). The project narrative shall provide additional details to milestones and clarification to the work or deliverables included in each of the major elements of work in the proposed schedule.

The standard has been met when: The offeror demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient project schedule with narrative that captures all SOW requirements and execution timelines. The offeror must provide a schedule that illustrates and displays project completion of all major elements of work and timelines for each element of work using a graphical or tabular representation (e.g. MS Project, AF IMT 3064, or Gantt chart). The project schedule and narrative shall be redacted to remove all company names, logos, and personnel names.

Technical Sub-Factor 2: Redacted Project Line Item Estimate.

Description: Provide a redacted copy of the line item estimate submitted in the pricing volume.

The line item estimate shall include quantities and be redacted to exclude cost elements such as unit prices and total costs for labor or materials, overhead, profit, bonds, and company name(s)/logo(s).

The standard has been met when: The offeror provides a copy of the line item estimate from volume I detailing their individual project elements, including but not limited to: materials, TECHNICAL RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

equipment, and labor redacted for any costs; and the quantities and units proposed are considered reasonable and acceptable for successful completion of the project. The line item estimate shall be redacted to remove all pricing information (unit, extended amounts, overhead, profit, etc.), company names, logos, and personnel names.

2.6 Discussions: If discussions are to be conducted, the Government will establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The competitive range will consist of the most highly rated offerors based on evaluation of all offers against all factors. 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. Prior to the establishment of the competitive range, and after the decision to conduct discussions has been made, the Government may enter into limited communications with offerors whose inclusion or exclusion from the competitive range is uncertain. These communications are limited in accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(1).

The Government will only enter discussions with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) by a common cutoff date and time as established by the contracting officer. If, after discussions have begun the Government determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. This may occur at any time even if all material issues have not been discussed or if the offeror has not yet been afforded the opportunity to submit a proposal revision. Written notice of exclusion from the competitive range will be provided to unsuccessful offerors.

(End of Evaluation)