Attachment 20 - Evaluation Factors (Section M).pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Basis of contract award will be a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors past performance history will be considered significantly more important than price considerations. The contract will be a Firm-Fixed-Price contract. The procurement consists of one solicitation with the intent to award a target of two (2) IDIQ Construction Contracts to the responsible offerors whose proposals, conforming to the Request for Proposal (RFP), will be most advantageous to the Government resulting in the best value, price and past performance factors considered. The Government also intends to evaluate up to three Offerors for inclusion in an on-ramp pool. The Government reserves the right to evaluate and/or award more than or fewer than the target number of contracts.

FACTOR I - PRICE EVALUATION

Initially, offers shall be ranked according to total proposed price for the TOTAL BID (Sum of all CLINs).

An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Schedule B, Price Schedule, by the proposed unit price for each Line Item to confirm the extended amount for each.

The extended amounts will be added together to determine the total evaluated price (The total evaluated price will not be used as the award amount, only for price evaluation purposes. Task order award amounts will be the result of fair opportunity competition amount the FEM contractors, utilizing the competitively established pricing from the Schedule B*).

Sample Project Evaluation:

Offerors are required to submit a detailed price proposal for one (1) sample project. The sample project price proposal will be evaluated to demonstrate the offeror's comprehensive understanding of contract pricing requirements and pricing methodology. The sample project price will not be factored into the offeror’s total evaluated price.

Offerors whose total evaluated price or sample project price is unreasonable (in accordance with RFO

15.404 and RFO 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with RFO 15.404-1), or unaffordable (not within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) may not be considered for award. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price and the sample project.

*Note: Proposed unit prices are not-to-exceed prices. Should an offeror be awarded this contract, subsequent task orders must utilize the proposed unit prices or lower in the task order pricing.

FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on the lowest priced offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from the offeror, as solicited, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition, and sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interview with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance assessment.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency and Relevancy. Recent efforts are defined as having completion no more than 3 years from proposal response date.

Next, the Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance to determine how relevant an effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

There are four levels of relevancy as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures as shown below:

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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.

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence, as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be considered as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The Source Selection Authority may determine that “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” is worth more than “Neutral Confidence”.

Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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 lowest priced offerors will be evaluated on past performance. If the lowest priced offeror, when evaluated, does not have a Substantial Confidence on the Performance Confidence Assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until five (5) offerors are determined to have a Substantial Confidence on the Performance Confidence Assessment or until all offerors are evaluated.

If there are five (5) offerors that have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the first two (2) lowest priced offerors will be awarded a contract and will compete for subsequent task orders. The next three (3) lowest priced offerors will be included in an on-ramp pool.

If all offerors are evaluated, and there are not five (5) offerors that receive a Substantial Confidence on the performance confidence assessment, the Government will consider the next lowest priced offeror who has received a Satisfactory Confidence on the Performance Confidence Assessment.

Once there are five (5) Offerors, or all offerors have been evaluated, that have at least a Satisfactory Confidence Performance Confidence assessment, the first two (2) lowest priced offerors will be awarded a contract and will compete for subsequent task orders. The next three (3) lowest priced offerors will be included in an on-ramp pool.

(End of Section M)