Roofing SECTION M Revised.docx

SECTION M - Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis of significantly more importance than price considerations. 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. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals, consisting of the offerors’ proposals for the Sample Project, on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable or Unacceptable, as defined in the table below. The Sample Project proposal will be evaluated based on whether it demonstrates an understanding of the Task Order proposal preparation process using the bid schedule prices, completely and adequately addresses the work required by the Sample Project Package (Attachment L-1) and is submitted in accordance with the Task Order Procedures in Section F.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable An approach which, as proposed, does not meet specified minimum performance/capability requirements necessary for performance due to error(s), omissions(s) or deficiency(ies) which, in the view of the government, may be corrected through discussions without significant revision of the proposal.

B. Price Evaluation. Next, the government shall rank by price all offers that received a technical rating of Acceptable or Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable. Each offeror’s proposed pricing and supporting rationale will be evaluated for reasonableness.

C. Past Performance Evaluation. The government past performance evaluation team shall perform a past performance evaluation on the five lowest priced offerors. The government reserves the right to seek information on additional offerors if none of the five lowest priced offerors receive a Satisfactory or higher confidence assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The government past performance team 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.

1. The past performance team will seek recent and relevant performance information from:

a. Past performance information submitted by the offeror in Part III of the proposal (the government may contact references provided on each project).

b. Questionnaires, forwarded by the offeror to past or current customers, and sent by the respondent directly to the Contracting Officer.

c. Data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

2. 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.

3. The past performance evaluation team will review all pieces of past performance information obtained on the offeror to determine recency and relevancy. For the purposes of this evaluation, recency and relevance will be defined as follows:

a. Recency is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years of the date of this solicitation. Work efforts that are not recent, will not be considered.

b. Relevancy is defined as performance of efforts similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy will be assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant as defined in the table below. The Government will give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor. For this acquisition, past performance will be considered most relevant when it demonstrates effort involving repair or construction of built-up, sheet metal, or fiberglass shingle roofs.

RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

c. In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant and recent to the effort described in this solicitation.

4. The past performance evaluation team will review each piece of past performance information obtained on the offeror and rate the performance.

a. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets basic contract and technical requirements, the assessment may 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, and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

b. Where 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.

c. The following performance definitions will be used in the evaluation of performance on each piece of past performance information.

PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITIONS

PERFORMANCE

RATING

DEFINITION

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

5. The past performance evaluation team will integrate the recency/relevancy, and performance rating on all the past performance information evaluated for the offeror. The evaluation team will also evaluate the first task order (seed project) and the contractor’s technical ability to use the completed bid schedule to create a task order that includes all the appropriate line items. This comprehensive evaluation will result in an overall Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined below. 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.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

D. If the lowest priced offeror is determined technically acceptable, receives a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, evaluations will stop at this point as this represents the best value to the Government. Award will be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

E. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror if the lowest priced offeror receives a Performance Confidence Assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision based upon price and past performance. Award will be made to the offeror who represents the overall best value in terms of price and past performance where performance is considered significantly more important than.

F. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

G. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.