Attachment_12_-_Section_M.docx

FA4528-19-R-A005

Attachment 12

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award:

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award a multiple award IDIQ contract for paving services as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability and acceptability of the Small Business Participation Submission of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Participation Submission, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance significantly more important than price. 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposals 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 II below.

B. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award up to four (4) contracts for the MACC Paving IDIQ. The Government reserves the right to award to only one offeror if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government reserves the right to award the seed project to the awarded firm providing the lowest price for the seed project, subject to availability of funds. At the time of award, the Government will issue a task order for the minimum guaranteed amount to all of the contractors awarded a contract under the MACC Paving IDIQ.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

A. General

1. 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. 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP, shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and therefore not considered eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP. Volume I must also include the Financial Responsibility Questionnaire (Attachment 10), and Subcontractor Consent Letter (Attachment 4), Client Authorization Letter (Attachment 6) if applicable, and Subcontracting Plan (see paragraph 2 below for details) if applicable.

2. Subcontracting Plan – Offerors with a large business status must provide a Subcontracting Plan that clearly demonstrates compliance in accordance with FAR 19.704. The Subcontracting Plan is not applicable to small businesses; therefore, small businesses should not submit a Subcontracting Plan. This plan will be reviewed for compliance only and not evaluated. A Subcontracting Plan template can be provided upon request.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the project documents and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses the following subfactor in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One: Organizational Structure

Description: Offeror shall provide a document that outlines their organizational structure.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a diagram identifying the Project Manager, Site Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager specifically used for this project with minimum 5 years of related experience. Provide information on the individual’s name, title, duty, and years of experience on the following key personnel: Project Manager, Site Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager.

Technical Acceptability Rating for Organizational Structure

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor Two: Small Business Participation

Description: Offeror must provide a Small Business Participation Submission.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation Submission addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail:

a) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

b) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

c) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph c) above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission will be evaluated against the FY19 Air Force Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The Air Force 2019 goals are as follows:

Technical Acceptability Rating for Small Business Participation

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions described in each subfactor. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

E. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself who is the sole provider of required services and/or materials whose inability to perform subcontract/teaming contractor actions as defined by the primary offeror would result in project failure. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and, if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including price and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume IV of its proposal:

· VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To be considered Very Relevant, the effort must include: site grading, pavement removal and installation, base course stabilization, concrete installation, and site restoration.

· RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To be considered Relevant, the effort must include three of the following elements: site grading, pavement removal and installation, base course stabilization, concrete installation, and site restoration.

· SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To be considered Somewhat Relevant, the effort must include two of the following elements: site grading, pavement removal and installation, base course stabilization, concrete installation, and site restoration.

· NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including, but not limited, to length of effort, dollar values, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Paving IDIQ. They are as follows:

3.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

· Duration of Time: No less than 30 days per project.

· Magnitude: At least $250,000.00.

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

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.

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 is 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 past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractors’, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

F. Volume IV, Price Proposal Factor

1. General: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon proposed seed project price. Offerors whose proposed price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

2. Price Rating:

a) 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.

b) The Government shall rank all offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP is the total seed project proposal. 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.