Attachment 5 - Big MACC - Section M v15 QA Changes.pdf

FA4528-26-R-0002

Attachment 5, Evaluation Factors, Page 1 of 7

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. General Information

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1.1. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Revolutionary

Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, RFO Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and RFO

Part 36, Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, as supplemented by the RFO

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS) and Department of the Air Force Contracting Compass procedures (DAF). The RFO is available electronically at: https://www.acquisition.gov/.

1.1.2. The Government will conduct a competitive Past Performance Source Selection in which the highest rated proposals may be awarded a contract. Those offerors selected, whose proposals are deemed to be the best value to the Government, will be awarded an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract on the Multiple

Award Construction Contract (MACC). All MACC IDIQ contractors will compete for individual task orders. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Proposals addressing only a subset of the Air Force requirements may be deemed incomplete and ineligible for award.

1.1.3. 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.

1.2. Contracts to be Awarded

1.2.1. The Government intends to award a target number of ten (10) contracts to the most qualified small businesses along with a pool of vendors that may be awarded contracts via “on-ramping” procedures at a later date if required by the Government that demonstrate the greatest confidence of performance to the Government, responsibility, and technically acceptable. The Government reserves the right to award less than ten (10) or more than ten (10) initial contracts if it is in the best interest of the

Government.

1.2.1.1. This acquisition is 100% small business set-aside using North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 – Commercial and

Institutional Building Construction with a Small Business Size Standard of

$45,000,000.

1.2.1.2. The resulting MACC will consist of one (1), five (5)-year base ordering period and one (1), five (5)-year option period with a total Firm Fixed Price (FFP) https://www.acquisition.gov/

Attachment 5, Evaluation Factors, Page 2 of 7

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) ceiling of $500,000,000.

1.2.2. Award will be made to responsible offerors IAW RFO Subpart 9.1, Responsible

Prospective Contractors, whose proposals present the best value to the Government and conform to all solicitation requirements.

1.3. Negotiations

1.3.1. IAW RFO 15.203, Competitive award without negotiation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award IDIQ contracts without negotiation and without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offerors shall submit sufficient information according to the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of proposals. IAW RFO 15.202(2), Clarifications, clarifications and/or other exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors or clarify certain aspects of an offeror’s proposal will not constitute negotiations. Clarifications do not permit offerors to revise their proposal and cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies, material omissions, or materially alter the technical elements of the proposal. Clarifications may occur, at the Contracting Officer’s discretion, at any time after receipt of proposals through contract award. The Government ultimately reserves the right to negotiate if it is in the Government’s best interest.

1.3.2. If, during evaluations, 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. 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 (FPR) are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1.4.1. 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.

2. Evaluation Factors for Award

2.1. Price will not be evaluated at the MACC level but will be evaluated at each individual

Task Order level. Award will be made to a target number of ten (10) of the most qualified offerors most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors listed below.

2.1.1. Factor I – Technical

2.1.1.1. Project Management Approach

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P7_489 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P7_489

Attachment 5, Evaluation Factors, Page 3 of 7

2.1.2 Factor II – Past Performance

3. Factor I: Technical

3.1. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate all technical proposals on the basis of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal evaluated shall be evaluated utilizing the one (1) technical factor listed below, as it applies to the MACC specifications. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required at Minot AFB. Failure to provide a reasonable and complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in Attachment 4 – Section L - Instructions to Offerors. Any factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal “Unacceptable” and, therefore, ineligible to receive an award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of negotiations, 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 negotiation.

TABLE 1 – Technical Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.2. Factor 1: Project Management Approach –The “Instructions to offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following:

Section L – Instructions to Offerors Section M – Evaluation Criteria

Factor 1: Project Management Approach – offeror will propose a comprehensive plan addressing administrative capabilities and the following preconstruction and closeout submittals as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1 for: site superintendent, safety plan, quality control plan, red-line and as-built drawings, equipment/ facility training, quality control management prefinal punchlist, beneficial occupancy and handover/training for Government personnel, and warranty binder.

Factor 1: This Factor is satisfied when the Offeror provides a comprehensive Project Management Plan that demonstrates comprehensive administrative capability to execute all contract requirements on schedule and in accordance with established quality standards as defined in the specifications and EM 385 1-1.

At a minimum, the plan must detail the Offeror's approach, methodology, and operational controls for managing and delivering the following critical submittal elements including preconstruction and project closeout:

• Key Personnel & Oversight: Identification and responsibilities of the Site Superintendent.

• Safety Plan: A project-specific Accident

Prevention/Safety Plan.

Attachment 5, Evaluation Factors, Page 4 of 7

• Quality Assurance: A comprehensive Quality

Control (QC) Plan, including procedures for QC management and the execution of the pre-final punch list.

• As-Built Documentation: Procedures for maintaining and delivering accurate red-line and final as-built drawings.

• Handover & Training: Plans for conducting comprehensive equipment and facility training for Government personnel.

• Closeout Deliverables: Process for compiling and submitting the final warranty binder.

4. Factor 2: Past Performance

4.1. The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the

Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. There are three aspects of the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality

(including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects must be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated.

4.2. Evaluation of Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance submission for compliance with the following criteria:

4.2.1. Relevancy: Projects with a value at or above $1,000,000 will be considered for the relevancy assessment. This defines the minimum magnitude under North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220 – Commercial and Institutional

Building Construction for this evaluation.

4.2.1.1 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

Rating Definition

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.

Attachment 5, Evaluation Factors, Page 5 of 7

4.2.1.2. For the purposes of this MACC IDIQ evaluation, the terms in the

Relevancy chart are clarified as follows: “Similar scope and complexities” is defined as projects demonstrating experience in general construction services such as maintenance, repair, alteration, demolition, and new construction of facilities.

The assessment of complexities will also consider performance in secure or controlled access environments and in locations with challenging logistical or weather conditions.

4.2.1.3. 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.

4.2.2. Recency: To be considered recent, the effort must be ongoing or have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Projects that are not ongoing or were not performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation will be considered not recent and will not be evaluated.

4.2.3. Quality of Performance: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (reference RFO

15.104(b)(2). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment describe in paragraph 4.5 below. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

4.2.4. Joint Venture (JV) submissions:

4.2.4.1. For a new JV (i.e., a JV formed for this opportunity with no performance history as an entity), offerors should submit projects performed as a single entity and the Government will evaluate the past performance of the individual entity.

Any single partner to provide satisfactory past performance may impact the overall rating of the Joint Venture.

4.2.4.2. For an existing JV, (i.e., a JV with its own performance history), offerors should submit projects performed by the JV entity itself. While projects from member companies may be submitted, the Government will consider performance by the JV entity to be more relevant.

4.3. Sources of Information: The Government will obtain recent and relevant performance information from any sources available. These sources include, but are not limited to:

Attachment 5, Evaluation Factors, Page 6 of 7

4.3.1. Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System (FAPIIS), System for Award Management (SAM.gov), Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System (eSRS), or other government officials and databases.

4.3.2. Contracting Officer knowledge; and

4.3.3. Data independently obtained from any other government and commercial sources.

4.5. Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will assign a single, integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating to each offeror. This rating is based on a comprehensive review of recent and relevant past performance, as well as the quality of that performance. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor for future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The final rating assigned will be one of the Performance Confidence Assessments adjectival ratings in the table below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

4.6. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any

Attachment 5, Evaluation Factors, Page 7 of 7 corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

4.7. IAW RFO 15.202(c)(1), an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”.