attachment_8_Section_M_-_Evaluation_Basis_for_Award.docx

M-900.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

A. SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 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, Appendix C, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 dated 25 May 2018. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the 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 lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the maintenance and repair of LF Contours.

3. Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions. 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. Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. 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 re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

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 or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

5. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

a. Step 1: Evaluate all timely proposals for responsiveness.

b. Step 2: Evaluate all responsive proposals for technical acceptability.

c. Step 3: Assess past performance for each offeror.

d. Step 4: Evaluate all proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (IAW FAR 15.404 & FAR 31.201-3) then ranked by Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

e. Step 5: The Government may request clarifications, communications, or discussions for proposals through Evaluation Notice(s).

f. Step 6: The Source Selection Evaluation Board will compile a Source Selection Decision Document for the SSA to assess the integrated best value to the Government and, upon contract clearance, select the successful offeror.

6. Responsibility: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

1. 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: Manpower Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2. Technical Factor: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Offerors that fail to clearly address any of the following requirements may receive an Unacceptable rating for this subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. 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 discussion.

Table 1 Technical Ratings

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Manpower Plan

Description: Offeror must provide a manpower plan outlining the hiring and surge plan.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a plan identifying the hiring plan and surge plan. The hiring plan shall show an approach to provide qualified personnel to meet the requirements of the SOW. The surge plan shall provide details on how the offeror will adjust manpower to a fluctuating volume of projects.

3. 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 “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

a. Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

Table C-2 – Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

b. 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 Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Contracting Officers and commercial sources.

i. 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 during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. 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 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 the offeror that performed as the prime contractor for site grading projects with a contract dollar value of at least $250,000.00 and having similar project size, complexity and function, utilizing trades relevant to those required by this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). 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 (PPIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

iii. Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 4 – Past Performance Quality Assessment

c. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table C-2). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

4. Price Factor: Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

4. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total price proposed for the requirement including its option years.

4. 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.

4. The Option to Extend Services Clause 52.217-8 will also be evaluated for the Offerors’ proposed prices. Clause 52.217-8 will be added/calculated to the offeror’s price proposal by utilizing 6 months of pricing from the final option year. Unit prices would remain unchanged. In addition, if the option were exercised after award, the actual prices used in the extension will be the prices from the prior option year. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential 6-month extension.

4. The Government shall rank all offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP is the base year plus all option years to include the 6-month extension. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. If at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of price.