Attachment 14 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

SSP Attachment 4 - Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award.

This is a competitive best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Best Value technique chosen for this acquisition will be a Subjective Tradeoff. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 evaluated, 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. 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 past performance and/or technical of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). 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. To be considered for award, an offeror must:

1. Meet the Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, and conform to all solicitation terms and conditions in compliance with Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors or Respondents.

2. Receive an overall “acceptable” or higher technical rating with a “low” or “moderate” risk rating;

3. Receive a Past Performance Confidence Rating of “Satisfactory” or higher

4. Have a complete, fair and reasonable price and

5. Be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1.

(c) Combined Technical/Risk Rating: The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Unless a waiver is granted, combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 3 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2B of the DoD Source Selection procedures.

1.2 Discussions.

IAW FAR 52.215-1 (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Technical, Past Performance or Price Proposal. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will NOT constitute discussion, and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal. In addition, the Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such an action is in the Government’s best interest. 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. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the offeror's proposal that may change the rating of the offeror's proposal.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS.

The Government will assume that each proposal is complete and in accordance with Sections L and M and will initially rank the proposals from the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to highest TEP. The TEP will be utilized to establish the evaluation order only. The TEP will be determined by adding the offerors total base price and all option prices identified in Section B. Once the ranking of the TEP is established, the offer with the lowest TEP will be submitted to the Technical Evaluation team for evaluation of Factor 1, which includes both Technical and Technical Risk, and three subfactors. If that offer receives Acceptable ratings for all three of the Technical Subfactors, the proposal will be considered Technically Acceptable and has a low or moderate risk rating and will then be evaluated for past performance under Factor 2. If the lowest TEP proposal does NOT receive Acceptable for all three Technical Subfactors and a low or moderate risk rating, that proposal will be considered Technically Unacceptable and will NOT be evaluated for past performance. The offeror with the next lowest TEP will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability and Past Performance using the same procedures above. Once a proposal in order of TEP has received Acceptable for all three Technical Subfactors and receives a “Substantial” confidence rating for Factor 2, Past Performance, the evaluation will stop. If the proposal receives an Acceptable rating for Factor 1 but receives less than a Substantial Confidence rating for Factor 2, the evaluation process will start over until the lowest TEP proposal receives both an Acceptable rating for Factor 1 and Substantial Confidence rating for Factor 2. If no proposal receives a Substantial Confidence for Factor 2, the offer with the lowest TEP, with an Acceptable rating under Factor 1 and a “Satisfactory” performance confidence rating will be the awardee. If no offeror received a “Satisfactory” Performance confidence rating, then the offer with the lowest TEP, Acceptable rating under Factor 1 with an “Unknown/Neutral” Performance confidence rating will be the awardee. The Government will NOT award a contract to an offeror rated “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence”.

The offered price must be determined fair and reasonable, and the offeror must be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1. If such proposal is found, then the SSA may determine that the proposal represents the Best Value and direct award be made to the offeror without evaluating higher priced proposals or conducting discussions with previously evaluated, lower priced offerors. With the evaluation process described above, the offerors are reminded that it is imperative that providing their best offer in their initial proposals in terms of the accurate/reasonable construction cost estimate under the Technical volume and reasonable/realistic unit and extended costs in Section B of the SF 1442.

EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: SEED Project Subfactor 2: Contractor Team Capability Subfactor 3: Bonding Capacity Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1 Relative Importance of Factors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Past Performance, Technical, and Cost/Price. Order of importance: Factor 2 (Past Performance) being most important, Factor 1 (Technical) next in importance, and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), past performance and technical when combined are significantly more important than cost or price.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution to meeting the Government requirement and assessment of the technical risk which considers the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance and need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments into one rating: the Technical and the Technical Risk. These two have equal impact for the rating of each Technical factor. The offerors proposal shall be evaluated utilizing the three (3) subfactors. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a reasonable and 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 of this solicitation. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal “Unacceptable” and therefore unawardable. 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 establishing a competitive range or conduction discussions.

3.1 Technical Assessment. The technical assessment provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror's solution for meeting the Government's requirement. The assessment will focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal, and how well the offeror's proposal meets the Technical factor requirements.

3.2 Technical Risk Assessment. The Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

3.3 Technical Subfactor Ratings. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The Technical Risk descriptions identified in the Combined Technical/Risk Rating description are further defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B - Technical Risk Descriptions, excerpted below. Factor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. Based on the both the technical and technical risk of each subfactor the Technical rating will be determined Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal “Unacceptable” and therefore unawardable.

3.3.1 SUBFACTOR 1: SEED Project. (15 Page limit)

In accordance with Section L, Subfactor 1, the offeror’s proposed SEED Project will be evaluated based on the project schedule and proposal.

The project schedule shall be evaluated on how well the offeror captured the separate work elements of the project. The AF Form 3064 or equivalent shall reflect a maximum performance period of 136 days. At a minimum, the project schedule shall be evaluated against the following elements:

· Identification of separate work elements

· Order of work elements to include project phasing (including identification of critical path if required)

· Number of days for each work element

· Identification of work elements in the critical path

· Identification of Long Lead Time Materials (Long lead items such as major equipment, electrical equipment, pre-engineered piping, etc., must be specifically identified in the technical proposal. If there are no Long Lead Time Materials, the proposal must state that there are no Long Lead Time Materials).

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the practicable bid schedule shows all the necessary labor, equipment, material, and all necessary items to complete the SEED project, CP1139009, Repair Sewer Lines Basin 2, identified under this solicitation. The line item structure and numbers shall match the solicitation bid schedule for the base year. List the line items and quantities to accomplish the solicitation SEED project, Repair Sewer Lines Basin 2 The SEED Project Proposal cost is NOT an evaluation factor in selecting the IDIQ contractor.

3.3.2 SUBFACTOR 2 – Contractor Team Capability: (30 Page Limit)

In accordance with Section L, Subfactor 2, Contractor Team Capability will be evaluated against the following requirements:

· Project Manager

· Superintendent/Quality Control Officer

· Construction General Foreman Each individual listed above must clearly demonstrate experience in at least one of the types of work listed in this subfactor, subparagraphs a – b (below). However, the team must clearly demonstrate experience in both types of work. The projects demonstrated by each individual shall include the project name, description of work, location, client name, telephone number and email address, project cost, and year in which the project was completed. The minimum experience requirements to be demonstrated by the team are:

a. Airfield pavement on active airfields, a minimum of one (1) project with a minimum of $500,000 per year is required. Each project must meet the requirements of subparagraphs 1 or 2 below:

1. Military or other federal installations, or

2. Commercial airports must meet both of the following:

i. Military or multi-engine configuration aircraft with weights exceeding 500,000 pounds, and

ii. A minimum of 20 flights per day.

b. Utility work: A minimum of two (2) projects with a minimum of $100,000 per project is required for each utility type listed below.

1. Sewer-Water, >1 mile,

2. Electrical – Communications Infrastructure, > 2000 LF,

3. Storm Drainage

Offerors may include resumes for individuals other than those listed in this subfactor. However, the experience of other individuals shall not compensate or act as replacement for any individual listed above that does not fulfill the requirements of this subfactor.

The offeror's proposed team will be evaluated to determine if the qualifications of proposed personnel meet the identified minimum experience requirements.

3.3.3 SUBFACTOR 3 – Bonding Capacity (5 Page Limit):

In accordance with Section L, Subfactor 3, Bonding Capacity will be evaluated to ensure the offeror’s proof of bonding letter from a certified Department of Treasury Surety, as listed in FAR 28.202, clearly demonstrates the company’s bonding capability for a minimum of $5,000,000 per year for this requirement.

4.0. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR. (20 Page Limit)

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to successfully complete projects based on demonstrated past and present experience under recent and relevant contracts. Recency is defined as projects performed within the last six (6) years of the issue month of the solicitation. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to contract performance consisting of information demonstrating construction experience with contracts that have multiple projects/task orders such as repair, replacement, construction of airfield pavements, other pavements (to include but not limited to parking lots, driveways, sidewalks), site utilities, wastewater distribution systems, and drainage systems. Additionally, demonstrate a minimum of 10 projects/task orders done concurrently with costs totaling a minimum of $2,000,000.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and teaming partners. 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 or teaming partner. The past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The relevancy of the projects will be assessed based on the following criteria:

Section A: Project Types A1) Airfield Pavements, A2) All other Pavement projects (to include but not limited to parking lots, driveways, sidewalks) A3) Site Utilities A4) Water and Wastewater Distribution Systems A5) Drainage Systems

VERY RELEVANT

Past performance involving all categories of project types in Section A (every category, A1 through A5); demonstrates a minimum of 10 projects/task orders with concurrent performance totaling a minimum of $2,000,000.

RELEVANT

Past performance involving Project Type A1 (Airfield Pavements) and at least two (2) of the remaining project types in Section A that demonstrates a minimum of 5 projects/task orders with concurrent performance totaling a minimum of $1,500,000.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Past performance involving Project Type A1 (Airfield Pavements), and at least one (1) of the remaining project types in Section A; and the contract totals a minimum of $1,000,000.

NOT RELEVANT

Past performance efforts not involving Project Type A1 (Base Airfield Pavements) or any less than efforts described in Somewhat Relevant criteria.

(d) The process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment as defined below. This performance confidence assessment represents the Government evaluation team's judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated past and present performance. The performance confidence assessments are defined as follows:

Controlled Unclassified Information Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

4.1 Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

4.2 If a Teaming Agreement (no page limit) is submitted as part of the proposal as outlined in Section L, paragraph 4.2, each teaming offeror's past performance will be evaluated separately using the same evaluation methods described above. The Prime Contractor's past performance will be weighted slightly more than equal based on their overall responsibility for contract management. The separate ratings of each party in the Teaming Agreement will be combined to determine an aggregate PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CONFIDENCE RATING as defined in Section M.

5.0 COST OR PRICE FACTOR. (40 page limit)

The offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404.

5.1 Reasonable: Must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

5.2 In addition to the line item pricing in section B, the contractor shall complete the Bid Schedule (Attachment 1). Contractor shall fill-in and complete the Bid Schedule, which includes five (6) tabs (Base Year, Option Year 1, Option Year 2, Option Year 3, Option Year 4, Base + 4 Total, and Option to Extend Services (52.217-8)) to include the summary and specific divisions to be utilized for this project.

6.0 CLARIFICATIONS, DISCUSSIONS, AND NEGOTIATIONS.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, relevance of past performance information). Communications (Clarifications) 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. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Discussions or negotiations may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range.

Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face oral discussions at the 1st Special Operations Contracting Squadron, 350 Tully Street, Hurlburt Field, FL, 32544.

7.0 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY.

Once the apparent successful offeror is selected the Government will evaluate the offeror's financial capabilities and the specified criteria at FAR 9.104. Solicitation Attachment 5, Financial Reference Worksheet will be forwarded to the financial institution and a determination will be made regarding the apparent successful offeror’s financial capabilities and overall contractor responsibility using the specified criteria at FAR 9.104.

8.0 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 subfactors.

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.

image1.jpeg image2.jpeg image3.jpeg