Attach 14 - Section M FINAL.pdf

FA441724R0001

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

M-1.1 Number of Contract(s): The Government intends to make an award to a single contractor. The awardee will perform SABER projects as described in Statement of Work for a single six (6) month base ordering period and will be awarded a Task Order (TO) to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award. A total of four (4) one-year option periods along with an additional six (6) month option to extend services will be evaluated by the Government in accordance with FAR 52.217-9 and 52.217-8.

M-1.2 Basis for Contract Award

M-1.2.1 This is a competitive, Best Value Tradeoff source selection where the Past Performance factor is considered significantly more important to the Price factor for proposals rated "Acceptable" under the Technical factor. To be considered for award, an offeror must:

a) 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;

b) Receive an overall "Acceptable" Technical Rating;

c) Receive a Past Performance Confidence Rating other than "Limited" or "No Confidence;"

d) Have a complete, fair, and reasonable price/coefficient; and

e) Be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1.

M-1.2.2 All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and past performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror being determined technically unacceptable.

M-1.2.3 The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements of this solicitation in terms of quality and affordability. In this source selection, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an integrated assessment and best value award decision to award without discussions or will direct establishment of a competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions. In making an integrated best value award decision, if the SSA determines it to be in the Government's best interest, the Government may trade up to a proposal with a higher coefficient rate that also has a higher performance confidence assessment rating. As such, award may be made to a higher priced, technically acceptable offeror with a greater performance confidence assessment rating, over a lower priced, technically acceptable offeror with a lesser past performance rating (to include "Unknown Confidence"). The Government will not award a contract to an offeror rated "Limited Confidence" or "No Confidence" under the Past Performance factor.

M-1.3 Discussions and Evaluations.

M-1.3.1 While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the 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 discussions, and the CO 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 action is in the Government's best interests.

M-1.3.2 Evaluation Process. The Government will assume that each proposal is complete and in accordance with

Sections L & M and will initially rank the proposals from lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to highest TEP. As indicated in Section L-3.3.4, the TEP will be utilized for establishing the evaluation order purpose only. The TEP will be calculated by multiplying the offeror's coefficient rate proposed for the base period and all option periods identified in Section B against the Average Estimated Volume (AEV) of each category. AEV is based on a maximum contract value of $18M over a potential four- and half-year period and will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Once the ranking by the TEP is established, the offer with the lowest TEP will be submitted to the Technical Evaluation team for evaluation of Factor 1. If that offer receives Acceptable ratings for both Technical Sub-factors, the proposal will be considered Technically Acceptable and will then be evaluated for past performance under Factor 2. If the lowest TEP proposal does NOT receive Acceptable for both sub-factors, 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 both technical sub-factors and receives a Substantial Confidence rating for Factor 2, 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 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, Acceptable rating under Factor 1 with 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” under Factor 2, past performance.”

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 proposal represents the best value and direct award be made to 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 coefficient rate in Section B of the SF 1442. The Government will evaluate offers as follows:

a) Technical: The technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical acceptability of each offeror's proposal. The evaluation will be accomplished IAW M-3, Factor 1.

b) Past Performance: The past performance evaluation team will evaluate the past performance. The evaluation will be performed IAW M-4, Factor 2, and a performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and the performance quality.

c) Price/Coefficient: The price evaluation team will evaluate the offeror's proposed coefficient to determine reasonableness. This evaluation will be IAW M-5.

M-1.3.3 The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government holds discussions, at the direction of the SSA, the CO will establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c)(1) procedures and this solicitation. IAW FAR15.306(c)(2), the Government also reserves the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the CO eliminates a proposal from the competitive range, the proposal will not be considered for award. Written notice of a CO's decision to eliminate will be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1).

M-1.3.4 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.

M-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 and 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exception unacceptable.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award(s) 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: Execution of Hurlburt SAMPLE Project

Subfactor 2: Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

M-3 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror's proposed approach, as detailed in the proposal, to satisfy the Government's requirements. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the SANITIZED technical proposals, assigning a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable". The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated utilizing the two (2) technical subfactors, as they apply to the SAMPLE Project SOW (Attachment 04) and the SABER Specifications (Attachment 02). 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 offer's proposal is "Unacceptable." Detailed instructions are included in the 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 conducting discussions.

Technical Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M-3.1 Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M-3.1.1 Subfactor 1: Execution of Hurlburt SAMPLE Project

The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical approach to accomplish all work elements of the Hurlburt SAMPLE Project. This sample project is for TECHNICAL EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY and is NOT a tangible task order for which the Government currently intends to award under the new SABER. The evaluation will address the offeror's response as outlined in the right-hand column (the corresponding "Instructions to Offerors" column on the left is summarized from Section L and is provided here for reference only).

Subfactor 1: Execution of the Hurlburt SAMPLE Project Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L-3.1.1 Provide a preliminary design across all disciplines in accordance with (IAW) the SAMPLE project SOW, Work Time Analysis and drawings (Attachment(s) 04, 05 and 06). The following essential elements are the minimum requirements for the concept design:

(a) Scope of Work Narrative. Provide a written narrative summarizing, explaining, and documenting the preliminary design to address, in detail, the offerors technical approach and critical path to the following components: mechanical, electrical, architectural, finishes, and plumbing. The narrative shall also clearly illustrate compliance with local, state, and federal building and construction codes.

(b) Construction Schedule. Provide a Construction Work Schedule, generated to reflect specific work elements and corresponding schedule of values for each element in chronological order of work to be performed within the allotted performance period. The AF Form 3064 “Contract Progress Schedule” (Attachment 15) shall be used and will be required for proposal evaluation purposes, no other formats will be accepted. The construction work schedule shall reflect project phasing and include at a minimum: mobilization, construction / start date, completion date, utility outages, major equipment deliveries, long lead time materials, installation, tests, pre-final inspections, final inspection, and delivery of project closeout documents as included in SABER Specifications, (Attachment 02).

(c) Cost Estimate. Provide an eGordian JOC based line-item cost estimate for the SAMPLE project based on specifications included in Hurlburt Specifications (Attachment 02), the Construction Task Catalog (CTC) (Attachment 03), and SAMPLE project specific attachments (Attachments 04-06).

M-3.1.1 The standard is met when the proposed preliminary design across all disciplines demonstrates the offeror’s technical capability for successfully executing and completing the SAMPLE project IAW the SOW, Work Time Analysis and drawings. The offeror’s concept design provides:

(a) Scope of Work Narrative that effectively and sufficiently summarizes, explains, and documents the preliminary design to address the offeror’s technical approach and critical path. Includes the following: mechanical, electrical, architectural, finishes, and plumbing. Narrative also clearly illustrates compliance with local, state, and federal building and construction codes.

(b) Construction Schedule is completed on the correct form and clearly and logically details baseline construction schedule, demonstrating full understanding of specific work elements, a realistic schedule of values for each element and proper work sequencing that is within the allotted performance period. The Schedule includes project phasing and includes, at a minimum, mobilization, construction/start date, completion date, utility outages, major equipment deliveries, and installation, tests, pre-final inspections, final inspection and delivery of project closeout documents.

(c) Cost Estimate is complete, accurate and reasonable using eGordian JOC based line-item cost estimate according to the Hurlburt Specifications, Construction Task Catalog, and provided SAMPLE project attachments. Accuracy and reasonableness will take into consideration the selection of line items and proposed quantities of each line item.

M-3.1.2 Subfactor 2: Management Approach

This subfactor will assess the offeror's capability to appropriately manage and implement procedures, processes and methods that assure high quality workmanship during the life of the SABER program performance period.

Upon contract award, the Management Plan (MP) provided under this subfactor will be incorporated into the basic contract to be a part of the contract requirements. The evaluation will address the offeror's response as outlined in the right-hand column (the corresponding "Instructions to Offerors" column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only).

Subfactor 2: Management Approach

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L-3.1.2 Provide a detailed Management Plan (MP) to include, as a minimum, the following components to cover all activities, both onsite and offsite, work by subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers, and purchasing agents:

(a) Complete key personnel organizational chart with a supporting narrative identifying precise lines of authority and responsibilities, including qualifications, certifications and duties of each person assigned to a key function.

(b) Narrative, or other effective means, detailing procedures for Quality Control (QC), scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals. Describe how warranty/maintenance support, unforeseen site conditions, design errors, etc. will be handled.

(c) Narrative, or other effective means, detailing the ability/strategy to execute multiple task orders (e.g., performing 10 task orders) in a compressed time frame, maximum of six (6) months, including adequate policies and procedures on subcontractor management and material purchasing procedures/capabilities.

(d) Qualifications of key personnel: resumes, certifications, or licenses that provide evidence that personnel have achieved the minimum qualifications. Key personnel to include at a minimum:

Program/Project Manager (PM)

Superintendent(s) – minimum of two (2)

Quality Control (QC) Manager

M-3.1.2 The standard is met when the proposed MP adequately addresses components covering all activities, both onsite and offsite, work by subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers and purchasing agents. MP addresses at a minimum:

(a) A clear and effective key personnel organizational structure that identifies precise lines of authorities and responsibilities, including qualifications, certifications, and duties of each person assigned to key function.

(b) Effective and logical processes for QC, scheduling, reviewing, certifying, and managing submittals. Also adequately describes procedures for handling warranty/maintenance support, unforeseen site conditions, design errors, etc.

(c) Sufficiently and clearly demonstrating the offeror's ability and strategy to manage and execute multiple task orders in a compressed time frame, including policies and procedures on subcontractor management and material purchasing procedures/capabilities.

(d) Key personnel meet or exceed minimum stated qualifications:

PM: Bachelors degree from accredited university, five (5) years managing construction projects w/ two (2) years industrial construction.

Superintendent: At least two (2) identified, each having five (5) years’ experience in construction w/ two (2) years industrial construction and two (2) years’ experience as project Superintendent or Foreman.

Quality Control (QC) Manager: Three (3) years’ experience in construction w/ two

(2) years industrial construction and two

(2) years hands-on construction experience.

M-4 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The purpose of the past performance factor is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to provide construction services that meet users' needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the offeror performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance.

M-4.1 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers an offeror's demonstrated recent, relevant, and quality of record of performance. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating the offeror's recent and relevant past performance.

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: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System(FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases to include, but not limited to, interviews with Program Managers, Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) POCs, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), an/or commercial sources.

The past performance evaluation will consider 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 this acquisition.

The offeror's past performance efforts will be assessed for three categories: Recency, Relevancy, and Performance Quality. The Government will only evaluate Performance Quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

M.4.1.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the efforts must be ongoing contracts or those completed within six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails condition will not be evaluated.

M.4.1.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the effort performed under those contracts/task orders relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. Offerors are required to demonstrate performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope to include managing multiple simultaneous task order type projects. Project work elements include renovation, alteration and repair, additions and upgrades, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and other major trades. Managing multiple simultaneous task order projects is defined as having at least ten

(10) active task order projects at the same time with cumulative value of all task orders totaling approximately $3.5 million annually. The Government may give greater considerations to performance on contracts where the offeror performed/is performing as the prime contractor. Once the relevancy rating is assigned, there will be no relative comparison between contracts assigned within the same rating (for example, a "Very Relevant" contract will not be rated higher or lower than other "Very Relevant" contract). The Government will use the following DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, relevancy definitions:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

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.4.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror's performance meets the solicitation requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the offeror's history of adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors may be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

M.4.2 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessment of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. This rating represents the overall evaluation of contractor performance.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant, favorable past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. NOTE:

The Government will not award a contract to an offeror rated "Limited Confidence" or "No Confidence" under the Past Performance factor.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessment, below:

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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.

M-5 FACTOR 3: PRICE/COEFFICIENT

M-5.1 Coefficient Rate Reasonableness. The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the coefficient proposed for the base period and all option periods. While the coefficient will not be rated, it will be evaluated for completeness and 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. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-5.2 The evaluation of the coefficient will be based on each offeror's proposed coefficient for all contract line items using the Coefficient Bid-Schedule. Using the Coefficient Bid-Schedule, the “Adjusted Annual Amount based on Percentage of Estimated Volume” will be multiplied by the offeror’s proposed coefficient rate for each category. The resulting amounts for each category will be added together to arrive at the “Total Estimated Usage” for each performance period. All performance periods will be added together to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for all periods (CLINs 0001-0005). Offerors coefficient is identified as a percentage increase (e.g., 1.10) or decrease (e.g., 0.95) to the current edition of the Construction Task Catalog (CTC). They include all cost elements not included in the current CTC (e.g., overhead, profit, G & A expenses, bond premiums, gross receipts taxes, quality control, clean-up, subcontractor mark-up, labor burden, mobilization/demobilization, permits and licenses, taxes, depreciation, as-built drawings, submittals, site security, etc.). Coefficient also includes any costs for the use or licensing fees associated with the eGordian software and access.

M-5.3 Average Volume Estimate is based on a maximum contract value of $18M over a four-and-a-half-year period and will be used for evaluation purposes only. The offeror should not consider this figure as any indication of proposed contract usage, nor base the proposed coefficient rates on any expectation that such levels of award will be made by the Government.

M-5.4 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items 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.

M-6 SABER SEED PROJECT PROPOSAL

M-6.1 Offeror’s Volume IV detailed SEED project proposal will only be reviewed for completeness of the proposal package and will NOT be evaluated for Technical Acceptance (Factor 1) detailed in M-3 above. To be considered complete, the proposal must include all “cost proposal” elements outlined in the SABER SOW (Attachment 01). Offerors SEED project proposal shall be developed encompassing details from SEED project package (Attachments 07-09) and using eGordian line-item pricing developed using the Construction Task Catalog (CTC) included at Attachment 03.

M-7 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY

M-7.1 Once the apparent successful offeror is selected the Government will evaluate the offeror’s financial capabilities and the specified criteria at FAR 9.104. Attachment 21, Financial Reference Worksheet will be forwarded to the financial institution and a determination will be made regarding the apparent successful offerors financial capabilities and overall contractor responsibility using the specified criteria at FAR 9.104.