Attachment 11 - Section M Evaluation Factors.docx

FA4528-20-R-0008

Attachment 11

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS:

1. SOURCE SELECTION

0. Basis for Contract Award: This is Subjective Trade Off source selection conducted IAW 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), and DoD Source Selection Procedures, 01 April 2016. These regulations are available electronically at http://acquisition.gov. The Government will conduct a competitive source selection in which technical capability and past performance history, when combined, will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations, IAW FAR 15.101(b)(2). A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW 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). 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. The Government reserves the right to evaluate and/or award more than or fewer than the target number of contracts based upon Source Selection Authority (SSA) determination that it is in the Government's best interest. The SSA’s best interest determination will be based on a consideration of one or more of the following items: available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of awardable proposals, consistent with Trade-off procedures outlined in this solicitation, following completion of an integrated assessment of the proposals received.

0. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government’s target number of contracts is five (5) small business contracts with a target of two (2) being Women-Owned Small Businesses. The MACC IDIQ contract falls under the NAICS 236220 with a 5-year base period and a 2-year option for a 7-year total ordering period. It will be a Firm Fixed Price contract, with a $90,000,000.00 ceiling.

0. 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 or the price is no longer fair and reasonable, the offeror may be ineligible for award. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. A competitive range, if required, may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

0. 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. 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 exceptions unacceptable.

0. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

Note: The Government’starget number of contracts is five (5) small business contracts under this solicitation, with target of two (2) of those being Women-Owned Small Business contracts. All potential awardees must meet the minimum qualification standards stated below to receive an award or to be added to the on-ramp pool. Additionally, up to five (5) 100% small business offerors, with the intention of two (2) of those being Women-Owned Small Businesses, will be identified for the opportunity to be placed in the on-ramp pool.

4. Step 1: Review all timely proposals for completeness.

4. Step 2: Separate all proposals by small business categories of 100% Small Business (all proposals shall be placed in this category) and Women-Owned Small Business if received.

4. Step 3: Evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability. Concurrently, the Government will assess past performance for each offeror.

4. Step 4: Evaluate all seed project proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (IAW FAR 15.404).

4. Step 5: At this time, an integrated assessment will be made on those proposals rated technically acceptable, with past performance confidence assessment ratings of substantial, satisfactory, or unknown (neutral), and pricing determined to be fair and reasonable based on competition of all selection criteria in both the small business and Women-Owned Small Business categories.

4. Step 6: Select up to two (2) Women-Owned Small Business proposals for award.

4. Step 7: At this time, the Woman-Owned Small Business’s selected for award in Step 6 will be removed from the Small Business pool, and the remaining awards will go to the offerors that represent the best value to the government, regardless of Small Business type. Select a target of three (3) 100% small business proposals for award. Perform an integrated assessment to create a target of five (5) of the remaining proposals for the on-ramp pool, with the target of two (2) of those being Women-Owned Small Businesses.

4. Step 8: A task order will be accomplished in the amount of $500 for each offeror selected to receive an award for attending the post-award briefing. Additionally, if funding is available for the seed project at time of IDIQ award, the seed project will be awarded to the offeror that represents the best value based on price amongst those offerors selected to receive an award.

0. 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.

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Organizational Structure Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

1. 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 listed below. Offerors that fail to clearly address any of the following requirements will 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 C-1 Technical Ratings

a. Subfactor 1 – Organizational Structure

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s organizational chart identifying all key personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction, with a minimum value of $1,000,000.00. The organizational chart should also identify the A-E firm and sub-consultants that will be utilized for design-build efforts.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a diagram identifying the individuals and A-E firm with sub-consultants specifically used for this project with minimum 5 years of related experience. Provide information on the individual’s name, title, duty, years of experience relating to similar projects in size and scope on the following key personnel: Project Manager, Site Superintendent, Quality Control Manager, Design Project Manager, and Project Architect.

b. Subfactor 2 – Quality Control Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror's Quality Control Plan.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal provides a Quality Control Plan that demonstrates how the offeror will maintain project quality in accordance with the Contractor Quality Control Plan standards listed in Attachment 1, Master Specification at 01 45 00.00 10 paragraph 3.2.

1. Past Performance Factor: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

0. Ratings. Each Offeror will receive a single integrated performance confidence assessment. This integration may include the recent and relevant present/past performance of the Prime Contractor, and joint ventures, and/or teaming partners. An Offeror’s overall confidence assessment will be impacted by past performance findings to include the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity of the Offeror’s team. More recent performance or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the MACC IDIQ, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Contractor performance and the resulting confidence level for work under this requirement. Each Offeror will receive one of the performance confidence rating as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, Listed in Table 5 below.

TABLE 5 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

0. The Government will consider and evaluate offeror's past performance information, to include the PPIF, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government will assess if past performance is deemed recent and relevant for the requirements of this RFP. Recent and Relevant is defined in the subparagraph below:

0. 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.

0. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s Present and Past Performance occurring during the recency window (five (5) years preceding the solicitation issuance date), will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture, or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assigned for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that Offeror is proposing. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Scope of effort is defined as that documented in the MACC SOW. The Government will use the past performance relevancy assessment described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.The Government will only evaluate the 10 most current efforts that are deemed recent and relevant for each offeror.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Consideration will be given to:

1. The offeror performed as the prime contractor for projects such as renovations, alterations, and repairs as defined by the NAICS code 236220 with a contract dollar value of at least $1,000,000.00 and having similar complexity and function, utilizing trades relevant to those required by this solicitation.

0. 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 PPIFs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.Teaming arrangements are characterized by two or more business entities that are working together under the representation of one of the existing business entities for the duration of a contract. A teaming arrangement is not a formal merger of two or more business entities. The Government recognizes the validity and integrity of teaming arrangements as detailed in FAR 9.6. All offerors are encouraged to review FAR 9.6 to acquaint themselves with its details. Since the Government can only determine the responsibility of the prime contractor per FAR 9.604(b), IAW FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, offerors must identify in their offer any teaming arrangement to be considered and completely identify the relationships/responsibilities of the teaming members, to include relevant and recent past/present performance information on a maximum of three (3) projects teamed with the same partner. If unable to submit three (3) past/present performance information forms with the same partner, submit past/present performance information on the prime contractor for a maximum of three (3) projects total.

0. Joint ventures are characterized as two or more business entities that have been merged to create one business entity with equal responsibility during the course of the contract. If this is a first time Joint Venture, please submit past/present performance information forms on a maximum of three (3) projects total by any business entity in the arrangement as identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

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

a. The Government will evaluate the proposed price for the seed project, in Attachment 6, in order to determine which offerors’ total price represents the best value to the Government. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Comparison of the proposed prices among Offerors in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price and will be IAW FAR 15.404-1.