FA4620-19-R-A001_Atch_13_-_Section_M.pdf

FA4620-19-R-A001

Attachment 13

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

PROVISION INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

1.0 Basis for Contract Award: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price considerations. It will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and all supplemental regulations.

These regulations are available electronically at https://acquisition.gov/. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Government seeks to award to the offeror(s) who will give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in awards to higher rated, higher priced offerors, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher priced offeror(s) outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. As a result of this solicitation, the Government intends to award up to four contracts to maintain competition throughout the contracts' period of performance in accordance with FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(A)(4).

1.1 Evaluation

The offeror's submission of a competitive seed project price and relevant performance information must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable, possesses technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources to deliver timely and quality construction projects.

Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated for completeness and compliancy with the proposal instructions as described in Section L - Instructions to Offerors. Incomplete proposals submitted by the due date and time of this RFP will be considered incomplete, and not evaluated.

1.2 Price Evaluation

After an initial compliance review, the proposals will be ranked according to the total proposed price identified on the Pricing Schedules. For the purpose of efficiency, offers will be logically grouped into increments, from lowest to highest in total price and the price analysis will begin with the lowest priced group of offers. Evaluation of price for affordability will be determined based on availability of funds. Evaluation of the seed project shall not obligate the Government to issue a task order for the seed project. Offerors must include a price for the seed project listed in Section J, “Attachment 1A, Price Schedule.” The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures, as described in the FAR and Supplements thereto to ensure the Government receives a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness if proposed solutions are similar.

Comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) from 92 CES.

Price analysis: The process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit.

1.3 Past Performance Confidence Evaluation

As a high volume of offers is anticipated, evaluations will begin with the lowest priced group of offers. All offers in this initial group will be evaluated. Evaluation of offers beyond this group may not be required. Recent Past Performance (within the last (3) three years as stated in Section L) will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract and support agreements. A relevancy rating as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, and a confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each offeror. For the purpose of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes the prime contractor’s organization as complemented by the prime’s team (subcontractors and other operating units of the prime, for example). The assessment of past performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the

Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9.

Potential sources of performance data include but are not limited to Government sources such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) systems, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances for this acquisition, through interviews with program managers and contracting officers, or other sources known to the Government. Data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments may be used if the data is recent and relevant. To assist the Government’s evaluation, each offeror’s proposal will contain supporting past performance documentation which demonstrates multi-discipline design-build construction experience for projects having a value of $200K and above as described in Section L. In determining relevancy, consideration will be given but not limited to such things as project value, project complexity (multi-discipline design-build), contract type, contract environment, division of company proposing, and subcontractor interaction. A “Design-build” project is defined as a single contract that requires the prime contractor to engage architectural, engineering services and construction services to complete the project with the prime contractor being the single point of responsibility.

The evaluation of Past Performance will take into account performance of predecessor companies, major subcontractors, consultant, or teaming contractor or partner whose effort, as demonstrated in the proposal, will significantly influence performance of the proposed construction and/or design-build effort and the ratings of these entities will contribute to the overall rating of the principal offeror. Demonstration of previous working relationship with the proposed entity will have a greater influence than a new relationship. Teaming partners supported by written agreements will have a greater influence than partners with no written agreement.

The assessment process shall be accomplished in strict compliance with the final released RFP, including any amendments and will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence, as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, also shown below. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” The SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

In performing the past performance evaluation, each offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings:

RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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.

CONFIDENCE RATINGS

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.

1.4 Award Evaluation

If the lowest priced offer is determined to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and is determined to be responsible, then the lowest priced offer represents the best value for the Government and will be awarded the Seed Project. A MATOC contract award shall be made to that offeror.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision, considering price and past performance, for award of the seed project. The integrated assessment will be a subjective tradeoff with Price being approximately equal to Past Performance.

Additional MATOC awards (up to 4) will be determined by the same criteria used to determine award of the seed project. If the next lowest priced offer is determined to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and is determined to be responsible, a subsequent MATOC award will be made. This process will continue until a total of up to four (4) MATOC contracts are awarded or until a proposal is determined to have a performance rating of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. At that point, the SSA will accomplish an integrated assessment to support the best value award decision, until a total of up to four (4) contracts are awarded. The PCO may decide to award to the offeror whose proposal is determined by the SSA to be the best value on the basis of the initial proposals received without conducting discussions. The SAAs decision regarding which proposal is most advantageous to the government shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. Recommendations, minority opinions presented to the SSA, as well as reports and analysis prepared by the SSEB shall be considered by the SSA. The source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgement and provide a rational basis for the award.

All contractors receiving an award (up to 4) will receive a $500.00 task order for the MATOC Orientation- Partnership Seminar to satisfy the contract minimum requirement. Should the Government receive less than four (4) qualified proposals, contract award will be made to less than four (4) offerors. All offerors must have adequate bonding, financial resources and the established business relationships or in-house capability to perform design/build requirements.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element for any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors would not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer deems discussions are in the Government’s best interest.

1.5 Competitive Range:

The Government reserves the right to limit for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (10 U.S.C.2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C.253B(d)). If the contracting officer, decides that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

1.6 Discussions:

To maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP, it may be necessary to conduct discussions. If discussions are necessary, they will be conducted with only those offerors determined to be within the competitive range. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals which are fully and clearly acceptable and without the need for additional information. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the contracting officer during any discussion period.

1.7 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers:

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in price.

1.8 Award Selection:

The Government anticipates awarding up to four (4) MATOC contracts, but reserves the right to award a fewer number of contracts. In the event this RFP results in only one award, the awardee shall proceed with project described in this RFP as the seed project as required by the terms of the resulting contract.

1.9 Award Decision:

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision, considering price and past performance tradeoff, for award of the seed project. Additional MATOC contract awards will be determined based on the final rankings of the highest rated proposals from the SSA’s integrated assessment best value award decision.

1.10 General Responsibility:

Additional elements to be eligible for award are elements of evaluation in the source selection that relate to proposed terms and conditions, results of pre-award surveys and other reviews. Since they are not directly tied to the specific evaluation areas, these additional elements do not receive a proposal risk assessment or performance confidence assessment rating. The following conditions shall be met in order to be eligible for award:

Responsibility. The offeror must be determined responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1.

Acceptability of Offers. The offeror’s proposal must comply with requirements of law, regulation, and all conditions set forth in the solicitation. The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the work requirements of the contract and may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable.

The government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an offeror’s proposal.

Pre-award Survey. A Pre-Award Survey (PAS) may be conducted as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Acceptability of other information. Other information submitted by the offeror must comply with the conditions set forth in the solicitation. The government reserves the right to make the final determination as to whether the other information complies with the conditions set forth in the solicitation.