Draft_Section_M_-_2015_0714.pdf

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government contemplates award of a single award contract resulting from this solicitation.

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable with Acceptable Past Performance (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 A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 06 Apr 2015. 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. 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 with acceptable past performance proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M1.1 DISCUSSIONS

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. 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 evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M1.2. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable as a standalone document without additional information. If award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may only be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

M1.3. COMPETITIVE RANGE/DISCUSSIONS

The Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if it deems them to be necessary. Discussions will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be notified as soon as practicable. Discussions will include issuance of evaluation notices. An offeror initially included in the competitive range may be eliminated from consideration for award during discussions. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Only offerors deemed

“Acceptable” in all Technical sub-factors with acceptable past performance are eligible for award.

M1.4. 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. 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.

M1.5. USE OF BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. (BAH) PERSONNEL IN THE

EVALUATION PROCESS

Personnel from Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), a planning support contractor for USSTRATCOM, will assist the Government Evaluation Team in the evaluation of Offerors’ proposals. BAH has signed and submitted statements of non-disclosure and is not allowed to compete for award. BAH will serve in an advisory role relating to the technical and price evaluation.

M2 EVALUATION FACTORS

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: Contractor Quality Control System Subfactor 2: Manufacturing and Logistics Subfactor 3: Installation Capacity Subfactor 4a: Submittal Process Subfactor 4b: Sample Submittal Subfactor 5: Follow-on Support Subfactor 6: Security Requirements

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

The Government will:

1) Order all proposals by total evaluated price from lowest to highest.

2) It is the government’s intent to evaluate a minimum of three (3) lowest priced offers for technical acceptability. Evaluations will continue until a total of three (3) proposals are rated as acceptable or until all offers are evaluated. However if there are less than three offers, then the lesser number of offers will be evaluated.

3) Evaluate past performance of the offers rated technically acceptable.

4) Evaluate price of the proposals rated acceptable in technical and past performance.

5) Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal that is determined to have an acceptable past performance rating.

M3. EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR EACH FACTOR

M3.1. FACTOR 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. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. 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.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M3.1.1- Subfactor 1: Contractor Quality Control System

Description: This subfactor evaluates the ability of the offeror to establish and maintain an effective quality control system (reference PWS section 7.2). Offeror may present draft Contractor Quality Control plan.

This subfactor evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s key project management and support staff and their approach to the management of the overall contract and resultant task orders on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. It also evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s approach to subcontract management, inclusive of design and execution.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal outlines how the furnishings fit-out stage of the contract will be executed, on time, meeting the performance

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

requirements and specifications with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance1.

This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within the applicable PWS section(s). The subfactor response shall be tailored to the nature and intent of the USSTRATCOM Furniture Fit Out contract. The Offeror will be required to demonstrate its approach to hiring qualified key project management and support staff. The standard is met when the proposal:

Identifies the contractor’s overall approach to the management of the overall contract and resultant task orders and demonstrates an organizational diagram showing clear, logical lines of authority from Program Manager to subcontracting management, including site investigation, design, site superintendence, and quality control;

Identifies the key project management and dedicated support staff by job title, demonstrates a brief job description and the qualifications required of each staff member (e.g., education, training, professional qualifications, licenses, and experience relative to the tasks he/she will perform if awarded the contract); professional qualifications and/or work experience for key staff members proposed to be assigned each given role will be presented showing the individual meets the respective job description and required qualifications; and

Identifies the logical lines and level of decision-making authority delegated to management and staff members (as a minimum, program manager, as defined in PWS section 7.2, shall have on-site decision making authority); and

Describes adequate policies and procedures for subcontractor management, including surveillance, recruitment and termination, quality control, and scheduling; and

Identifies the management and quality control procedures used for furnishings planning and installation , both by the prime and subcontractor.

M3.1.2- Subfactor 2: Manufacturing and Logistics

Description: This subfactor evaluates the ability of the offeror to manage self-performed and sub-contracted procurement and logistical activities ensuring materials/items arrive on time.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal outlines that the manufacturers' production throughput, for General Furnishing items and Systems Furniture, and logistical methods are capable of executing the FFO given the schedule established by the Government with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance1. Purchasing activities and quality control methods should be included.

This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within the applicable PWS section(s). The subfactor response shall be tailored to the nature and intent of the USSTRATCOM Furniture Fit Out contract. The standard is met when the proposal:

Establishes and communicates the respective work efforts and associated timeframes required to outfit a space with new furnishing items prior to material being on-site. At minimum, the proposal will cover: measuring site conditions, preparing/submitting for approval of submittals showing approved furnishing items' true dimensions in the verified- site conditions, purchasing activities (once submittal is approved and delivery order issued by Government), manufacturing lead time, logistics management, and delivery inspection and logistical error management (missing or damaged material). A separate portion of the response will describe processes of the above for reused items where they differ from new items; and

Outlines means and methods to establish and control a nominal just-in-time delivery schedule. The Offeror shall acknowledge and address the site-specific delivery requirements outlined in Section 3.5 and Attachment 2 of the PWS; and

Establish the maximum production capacity of the intended manufacturers for item types determined to cause risk to the intended fit-out schedule reflected in the CID. At a minimum, systems furniture, seating, collaborative furnishings, and MPR furnishings.

Where applicable, material sources must be included (ie, will the fabric manufacturer be able to support COM seating requirements); if the intended fit-out schedule exceeds the maximum production capacity, the offeror will outline proposed means to mitigate this issue (requesting schedule adjustment by the Government will be the last option of a prioritized list of mitigation techniques)

M3.1.3 - Subfactor 3: Installation Capacity

Description: This subfactor evaluates the ability of the offerors to install materials/items at the rate/schedule required by the Government. Provide separate information related to General Furnishings and Systems Furniture.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal outlines that sufficient installation labor, supervision, inspection and quality control will be demonstrated, meeting the performance requirements and specifications required in the PWS, with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance1.

This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within the applicable PWS

Establishes the minimum installation labor pool required to meet the intended fit-out schedule reflected in the CID. The proposal must identify how the offeror will recruit, train, and maintain the installation laborers required from local, regional, or national sources; and

Demonstrates estimated laborers, manhours per work day, manhours per requirement

(appliance versus systems furniture workstation), broken down by each intended delivery order, or 'wave'. The labor calculation must reflect how many labors are assigned to, or can be expected to be performing, the tasks of truck onloading through material delivery to the build area; and

Provides documentation of certified installers (as required by the PWS and/or CID); and

Identifies the material handling equipment required for installation and the means to provide the required equipment; and

Identifies any significant constraints to successful installation (such as, but not limited to, base inspection pit and dock elevator) and means to mitigate the constraint.

M3.1.4- Subfactor 4a: Submittal Process

Description: This subfactor evaluates the ability of the offerors to manage the submittal process given the vast quantities of items requiring submittal and the potentially short timeframe for submittal development and review.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal outlines understanding of the proper submittal workflow and associated timelines and the ability to manage this process to execute the FFO's schedule and PWS requirements with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance1.

This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within the applicable PWS

Demonstrates understanding of submittal approval flow and associated timeframes for each submittal type identified in the PWS. Submittal approval flow shall range from subcontractor to final Government approval. Submittal timeframes shall identify the duration of submittal development, prime contractor review, anticipated Government review; and

Describes how delays in submittal timeframes impact performance schedule. The proposal shall describe if/how approval schedule impacts vary between initial contract performance (where item types must be approved) than during mid-to-late contract performance (where layout approval is needed for previously approved item types).

Demonstrates that the offeror can successfully manage the submittal tasks of itself and subcontractors; and

Demonstrates a draft listing of the required submittals for project management, material/item types, and security requirements.

M3.1.5- Subfactor 4b: Submittal Process

Provide sample submittals demonstrating compliance with the specifications of the CID for item types listed below and for Offeror’s actual proposed make/model/finish.

• S01/S01-WKS

• S02

• S03

• S03A

• S03B

• S03C

• S03D

• S21

• SE01

• SE14

• SE14A

• SE14B

• T10

• T11

• WKS-AS

M3.1.6- Subfactor 5: Follow-on Support

Description: This subfactor evaluates the ability of the offerors to provide follow-on support meeting the timelines and responsiveness required by the Government.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal outlines understanding of the break/fix, alteration projects, and warehouse management requirements and ability to meet said requirements post FFO with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance1.

This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses and meets the minimum requirements specified below and within the applicable PWS

Outlines the managerial, scheduling, and labor processes intended to support furniture break/fix requirements outlined in PWS section 2.1.2.1. The processes must be described from the receipt of notice of an issue through the eventual issue resolution through reimbursement. Separate process flow must be provided for non-warranty and warranty resolution categories; and

Outlines the process to support a future furniture project pursuant to PWS section 2.1.2.2 and other applicable contract provisions. The processes must be described from the receipt of project request from the Government through the eventual punch-list and resolution through reimbursement.

Describes the offeror's means and methods to maintain an accurate warehouse inventory given the dynamic material stock resultant from break/fix issues and projects. The process must be described from the initial 'perfect' inventory, how material entry and exit into the warehouse will be recorded, and how changes in material inventory, or revised 'perfect' inventories, will be reported to the Government.

M3.1.7- Subfactor 6: Security Requirements

Description: This subfactor evaluates the ability of the offeror to manage Controlled Unclassified Information in accordance with the Security Requirements in Section 2.9 and Attachment 1.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates understanding of the security requirements and the ability/willingness to execute security requirements with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance1.

1 Low risk has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate risk can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

M3.2 FACTOR 2. 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.

M3.2.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

M3.2.2 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

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable 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 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. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

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); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

M3.2.2.1 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 five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M3.2.2.2 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 contract performance consisting of complete furnishings fit-out and support for a minimum of 1,000 workstation office facility outfit including ancillary furnishing items such as seating, storage, tables, etc. Relevant contracts will include integrating sourcing, logistics, installation, furnishing for the initial fit-out and warranty.

Relevant contracts including furniture alteration projects, and break/fix maintenance may be 'stand-alone' or included in the fit-out contract. 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 questionnaires 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

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

M3.2.2.3 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). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. 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

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE(N) Quality and/or performance information is not available.

M3.3 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 2).

M3.4 Confidentiality of Sources: Past performance information, including questionnaires and past performance sources are confidential and are not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out the source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to contact individuals concerning the past performance information will be perceived negatively and could impact your performance rating. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the source selection Contracting Officer only and not to any other individuals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring its subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance. Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government advisors is strictly prohibited.

M4. Price Factor (Volume III)

The offeror’s cost/price proposal (see Section L for cost/price volume instructions) will be assessed for fairness and reasonableness using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR

15.404. A “reasonable” price is a price that a prudent and competent buyer would be willing to pay, given data on competition, supply and demand, and general economic conditions. The Government may determine that an offer is unreasonable if the CLIN pricing between years is significantly unbalanced. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

CLIN 1X00 – Phase-In (FFP) The offeror shall price CLIN 1X00, Design Services, for the 3-Month Phase-In period. The remaining CLINs will be populated by the Government in the following amounts:

Period of Performance Government Populated $ Amount Base Period $xx.00 Option Period 1 $xx.00 Option Period 2 $xx.00 Option Period 3 $xx.00 Option Period 4 $xx.00 6-mo Extension $xx.00

CLIN 2X00 – Wave Installation (FFP) Offerors shall price CLINs 2X00 on the provided Excel spreadsheet at Section J, Attachment 02.

CLIN 3X00 – Reuse fitouts (CPFF) Offerors shall propose the max fee percentage for CLINs 3X00, Reuse Fitouts, for life of the contract; this proposed Fee will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The following Government populated amounts shall be used for evaluation purposes.

Option Period 1 $xx.00 Option Period 2 $xx.00 Option Period 3 $xx.00

CLIN 4X00 – Products/Items (FFP) Offerors shall to price CLINs 4X00 on the provided Excel spreadsheet at Section J, Attachment 02 for the base period, all option periods, and a 6-month extension period. Each period of performance shall be totaled, with the total price entered into Section B CLIN 4X00.

CLIN 5X00 – Break/fix support (LH) The following Government populated amount will be the amount used for evaluation purposes.

Option Period 1 $xx.00 Option Period 2 $xx.00 Option Period 3 $xx.00

CLIN 6X00 – Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL)(NSP)

M4.1 FFP CLINs For FFP CLINs, the Government will evaluate whether a price is fair and reasonable.

M4.2 CPFF Fee Percentage

For the CPFF Fee percentage, the Government will evaluate whether the fee is fair and reasonable.

M4.3 Price Realism Analysis The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis to determine whether an offeror's proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed.

M4.4 Total Evaluated Price The total evaluated price will be inclusive of all CLINs for the base period (including the phase-in period), all option periods, and the 6-month extension period. The 6-month extension period should be at the same rates as the last option period IAW FAR 52.217-8. The Government will evaluate whether the total evaluated price is fair and reasonable.