M-1_Evaluations_Factors_For_Award.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection

Procedures, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, and AFFARS

Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that each will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably and in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the

Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph M-2 below.

The Government intends to award five (5) contracts as a result of this solicitation. The government reserves the right to award fewer than or more than the stated number of contract awards.

M-1.2 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the

Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period.

M-1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M-1.4 Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

The Contracting Officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the Contracting Officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M-2 FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M-2.1 Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal shall be performed. The

Government’s evaluation shall be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Past Performance

Factor 2: Price (Seed Project)

M-2.2 Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations.

M-3 EVALUATION PROCESS: The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L, Paragraph L-2. All conforming proposals shall then be ranked by proposed price for the seed project from lowest to highest and then evaluated for past performance. If the five (5) lowest evaluated priced offerors are judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, those offers represent the best value for the Government and five (5) awards from that group may be made, in order of price. If the five (5) lowest priced evaluated offerors are not judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, evaluations will continue (in ascending order by price) until five (5) offerors are rated with

"Substantial Confidence" or until all offerors are evaluated; the Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision on five (5) awardees. The offeror providing the lowest offer of the awardees will be awarded the seed project task order; the other awardees will be awarded task orders for an orientation seminar.

M-3.1 Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency and relevancy. Past performance references and data of either party to a joint venture or teaming arrangement will be considered to apply equally to the joint venture or teaming arrangement.

M-3.1.1 Recency: To be determined recent, offerors may submit up to five (5) project references that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within three (3) years from the date of this solicitation

(SF1442 Block 3). Past performance information that does not meet this requirement will not be evaluated.

M-3.1.2 Relevance: To be determined relevant, an effort must have similar scope, magnitude and complexity of seed project. Past performance of greater relevancy 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. The relevance ratings in Table 3 below shall be used when assessing offeror’s efforts.

M-3.1.3 Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 2 below. If teaming partners/joint ventures both have prime contractor experience then their past performance rating will be equal to a prime contractor. If the teaming partners/joint ventures have no prime contractor past performance, the past performance will be rated lower. If a prime contractor submits past performance of a proposed subcontractor, the past performance information will be rated lower than if submitted for the prime. In the case of offerors for which there is no or limited information on past contract, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and a performance confidence rating of “Neutral” will be assigned.

Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory confidence will be rated more favorably than a Neutral confidence rating.

Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

Table 1 – Past Performance Relevance Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope, magnitude and complexity of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude and complexity of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope, magnitude and complexity of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope, magnitude and complexity of effort this solicitation requires.

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-3.2 Price Evaluation: The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures found in FAR Part 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M-3.2.1 SEED project/Price: This project is a viable JB MDL requirement and the Government intends to issue a task order upon the availability of funds. “Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.” All awardees will be awarded task orders to cover the minimum guarantee of

$500. In the case that funding for the SEED project is available, the awardee of the SEED project’s minimum guarantee will be met by their evaluated price in lieu of the $500 minimum guarantee, but will still be required to attend the post award conference. All awardees will be required to attend the post award conference. Offerors must include a price for the SEED project listed in Section J-3, “Attachments.”

M-4 ON/OFF RAMP INSTRUCTIONS

1. This provision prescribes the process by which the Government will ensure an adequate number of contractors are available at all times to achieve effective competition on all task orders. The Government intends to maintain a pool of up to five (5) contractors with proven track records for competing and delivering quality construction projects. The On-Ramp contractors will be notified of on ramp selection at the time of award. The Government reserves the right to cancel prior to the anniversary of the program date if determined not to be in the best interest of the Government.

2. Awardees are expected, in good faith, to participate in task order competitions, and if successful, to deliver quality projects on time and within budget, to include management and supervision of subcontractors. If for any reason an awardee cannot participate in a competition, the awardee shall provide written notice to the Government of the reason(s) for non-participation prior to proposal due date. Before the exercise of any option period(s), the Government will evaluate each awardees’ participation rate, reason(s) for non-participation, and performance evaluations for task orders completed or in progress. An awardee rated as Satisfactory may be renewed for the next option year. Failure to participate in good faith and/or overall annual performance assessment rating of Marginal or Unsatisfactory may result in the awardee being off-ramped from the multiple award program. An offramp decision results in contract expiration on the anniversary date of the contract period or option period and no remaining option period(s) being exercised.

3. In the event awardee(s) are off-ramped within 30-months of the initial contract award, the Government will reserve the right to on-ramp contractor(s) whom responded to this solicitation and were selected as on-ramp contractors to maintain a pool of up to five (5) contractors. On-ramp contractors will be selected based on initial evaluation results from the basic multiple award solicitation in order of ranking. Selected on-ramp contractors will be subject to a performance validation review. Contractor(s) must be active in

SAM and otherwise in compliance with the original multiple award solicitation. If found in compliance, the government will send written notice of its intent to on-ramp contractor with effective date of potential award. On-ramped contractors may be offered an IDIQ contract with an original guaranteed minimum and will be allowed to compete on future task order projects as an awardee.

4. The Government reserves the right to not utilize on-ramp procedures beyond the 30-month mark from initial awards. The original performance period for awardees is one base period plus four option years and a six month option to extend services per FAR 52.217-8; no contract will extend beyond this limitation regardless of when a basic contract is awarded.

5. Annual Performance Review (“Off-Ramp): Ninety (90) days before the exercise of each option year, the Government shall perform an assessment of each IDIQ Contractors performance based on their current performance on task orders during the current contract period. The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractors who have performed a satisfactory job on executing task orders and have no major contract deficiencies. Notice of the option to extend the term of the contract shall be given to those Contractors within 15 days of contract expiration; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 60 days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension. Annual Performance

Review ratings are as follows:

Exceptional: To receive an Exceptional (E) rating, a contractor must have received (E) on 75% of their annual Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report for all issued task orders.

This contractor exceeds many contract requirements with few minor problems on the project. Corrective actions are rated as “Highly Effective”.

Very Good: To receive a Very Good (VG) rating, a contractor must have received (VG) on 75% of their annual Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report for all issued task orders.

This contractor exceeds some contract requirements with some minor problems on the project. Corrective actions are rated as “Effective”.

Satisfactory: To receive a Satisfactory (S) rating, a contractor must have received (S) on 75% of their annual Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report for all issued task orders.

This contractor meets all contract requirements with some minor problems on the project. Corrective actions are rated as “Satisfactory”.

Marginal: To receive a Marginal (M) rating, a contractor must have received (M) on 75% of their annual

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report for all issued task orders. This contractor does not meet some contract requirements with serious (recovery still possible) problems on the project. The Contracting Officer shall make a determination regarding the continuance of any

Contractor receiving a Marginal (M) rating. The Contractor may provide written documentation that identifies extenuating circumstances or a performance improvement plan for consideration by the

Contracting Officer. Corrective actions are rated as “Marginally Effective; Not Fully Implemented”.

Unsatisfactory: To receive an Unsatisfactory (U) rating, a contractor must have received (U) on 75% of their annual Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) report for all issued task orders. A Contractor receiving an Unsatisfactory (U) rating may not be renewed for the next option year.

This contractor does not meet most contract requirements with serious (recovery not likely) problems on the project. The Contracting Officer shall make a determination regarding the continuance of any

Contractor receiving an UNSATISFACTORY (U) rating. The Contractor may be allowed to address via written documentation that identifies extenuating circumstances or a performance improvement plan for consideration by the Contracting Officer. Corrective actions are rated as “Ineffective”.