Attachment_2_-_Section_M.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR AWARD

A. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Subjective Trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with 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), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 2019 Edition. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http:// farsite.hill.af.mil. Trade-offs will be made between price and non-priced factors. The Government will select the proposal where technical/past performance is significantly more important than price to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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 and subfactors, 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 or exceed the requirements at a fair and reasonable price. 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 that the superior past performance of a technically acceptable higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

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. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, therefore each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

B. Evaluation Process

The SSEB will strictly adhere to FAR 15.3, as supplemented, and the evaluation process and criteria stated within this section, Section M – evaluation Factors for Award during evaluation of proposals. Technical, Past Performance and Price are the factors that will be evaluated. The technical factors and subfactors will be evaluated on a combined technical/ risk rating basis. Past performance will be evaluated based on “performance confidence assessments” Their evaluation will be fully supported by the narrative findings.

After we establish the competitive range, the evaluation process will proceed with all offers being ranked by total evaluated price. Technical and past performance evaluations will then begin with the evaluation of the 4 lowest total evaluated price (TEP) offers in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4). Should none of these proposals be rated technically acceptable with acceptable past performance, the next four lowest total evaluated priced proposals will be evaluated. The process will continue in this manner. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the government may elect to enter into discussions at any time.

C. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) firm-fixed price IDIQ contract for the Goodfellow AFB Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineer Requirements (SABER) construction requirement as an 8(a) set-aside.

D. Rejection Of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimate, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

E. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP.

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

F. Discussions It is the Government's intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that each offeror submit their best terms with their initial proposal. However 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 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 in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

G. 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 evaluation factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exception unacceptable.

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: the ability to perform multiple projects simultaneously and the ability to coordinate all work throughout the design, construction and close-out phase; effectively manage the designers, consultants, and subcontractors on the team; consistently deliver a quality product, through the use of effective quality control procedures; the ability to provide the required experienced personnel (IAW SABER specs) and

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the contractor states they have the ability to perform multiple projects simultaneously and the ability to coordinate all work throughout the design, construction and close-out phase; effectively manage the designers, consultants, and subcontractors on the team; consistently deliver a quality product, through the use of effective quality control procedures; the ability to provide the required experienced personnel (IAW SABER specs)

Subfactor 2: the capability of providing and utilizing the RSMeans (Computerized Pricing Guide

– CPG) cost estimating database compatible with e4Clicks Project estimator and Assemblies, Facilities and Master Composite (4C-e4CK-4580T-19) v2.637, or current version, to develop and provide an intermediate design package (ranging from 35% to 50% ) using AutoCAD drawings for the seed project and any future projects that may be completed under this project. The seed project will require a Phase II proposal only, in accordance with the solicitation ordering procedures.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal accurately reflects an understanding of how to operate estimating software such as e4Clicks Project estimator and Assemblies, Facilities and Master Composite (4C-e4CK-4580T-19) v2.637, or current version, and select appropriate lines out of RS Means to reflect work to be done under attached Seed project. Review section 3 “Technical Design Support Capabilities” of local provisions in section H of Request for Proposal.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

B. Factor 1 – Technical (volume 1)

Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a combined technical/ Risk rating basis assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically “acceptable” or higher, 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.

Table 1- Combined Technical/ Risk Rating

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

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

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.

Evaluation Process:

The technical team will evaluate all technical factors and subfactors for the offeror. The evaluation team will combine all subfactor ratings resulting in an overall technical rating as defined in Table 1. If the offeror’s technical proposal fails to address, or does not adequately address, any of the stipulated technical factors or subfactors, the offeror will receive an overall rating of “Unacceptable.”

C. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Neutral,” “Satisfactory,” or “Substantial” Confidence to be eligible for award. (1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival 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.

Evaluation Process:

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. 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 Questionnaire; the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within 5 calendar years of the solicitation issue date. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be evaluated. Consideration will be given to projects meeting the following criteria:

(a) Involve a minimum of three disciplines (multi-discipline)

(b) Have a total project cost of $300,000.00 or greater, and

(c) Were managed concurrently with other projects meeting both (a) and (b) above.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The evaluation of past performance information may take into account past performance information regarding SBA approved joint venture partner(s) predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or major and critical subcontractors when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Past performance regarding SBA approved joint venture partner(s), predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered subordinate to past performance information for the principal offeror. The government will use the table below to assess recent, relevant contracts based on the following criteria:

Table 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Rating

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.

Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive a confidence rating according to table 2.

D. Price Factor

1. Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

2. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to coefficients in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using weighted averages based on historical data from the last five years of SABER contracts and associated TOs (Table 4). Each CLIN will have a weight calculated using this historical data. The averaged proposed coefficient for each CLIN across all option years will be multiplied by the calculated weight to obtain a weighted percentage. The weighted percentage will be multiplied by the contract maximum value of $10,000,000 to determine the anticipated cost of that line item. For evaluation purposes only, all line items will be summed to get a total evaluated price of the proposal.

4. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such option

TABLE 4 – HISTORICAL CLIN DATA

CLIN

SUB CLIN

ITEM Description

Number of Projects Based on Historical

Data

Weight Based on Historical Dollars

Data

X001 Bare Costs Under $200,000

X001AA

Standard Hours - Non-Secure Area (Bare Costs Under $200,000)

17 25.35%

X001AB

Standard Hours - Secure Area

3 7.32%

X001AC

Non-Standard Hours - Non-Secure Area

0 1.00%

X001AD

Non-Standard Hours - Secure Area (Bare Costs Under $200,000)

X002 Bare Costs $200,000 to $500,000

X002AA

(Bare Costs $200,000 to $500,000)

6 29.50%

X002AB

1 6.20%

X002AC

X002AD

(Bare Costs $200,000 to $500,000)

X003 Bare Costs $500,000 and Above

X003AA

(Bare Costs Over $500,000)

2 23.03%

X003AB

X003AC

X003AD

(Bare Costs Over $500,000)

0 1.00%

X004 Non Priced Items 0 1.60%

Total 100.00%

5. Sample evaluation methodology:

Average of proposed coefficients for line item X001AA across all options multiplied by the weight for line item X001AA multiplied by contract maximum equals total price of line item X001AA for evaluation purposes. The sum of all line item calculated in this manner equals total price of the contract for evaluation purposes.

[(X001AA Base + Opt 1 + Opt 2 + Opt 3 + Opt 4) ÷ 5] × 22.73% × $16,000,000 = X001AA, then continue in the same manner for all remaining CLINs, totaling to determine the total evaluated price