Attach_12_SECTION_M_Revision_5.docx

FA4626-19-R-A014 Attachment 12

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

(a) Basis for Contract Award This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offerors, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price (of the initial project). Contracts may be awarded to the Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposals conform 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 are judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award of the initial project to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(b) Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award up to eight (8) contracts: six (6) Small Business, at least one (1) 8a and at least one (1) HUBZone for the Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC). Please see Attachment 10 of the solicitation for all details of the ON/OFF Ramp Provision included within this MATOC.

(c) Discussions If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government reserves the right to do so. Discussions will be conducted IAW AFFARS MP 5315.3, Chapter 3.5 - Discussion Process. However, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

· Factor 1: Technical (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

· Subfactor 1: Project Management Plan

· Subfactor 2: Technical Documents for initial Project

· Factor 2: Past Performance (Confidence Assessment)

· Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: 1) Past Performance, 2) Technical, and 3) Price. Factor 1 (Technical) will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Factor 2 (Past Performance Confidence) will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

NOTE: In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(b) Proposal Evaluation Approach

The proposal evaluation approach is as follows:

NOTE: The government intends to award up to eight (8) contracts under this solicitation, at least six (6) to 100% small business, at least one (1) to an 8a small business and at least one (1) to a HUBZone small business, but reserves the right to award less than eight (8). All potential awardees must meet the minimum qualification standards stated below to receive an award or be added to the on ramp pool. Additionally eight (8) additional offerors, four (4) 100% small businesses, two (2) 8a small businesses and two (2) HUBZone small businesses will be identified for the opportunity to be placed in the on ramp pool.

1. Separate all proposals by small business category, I.E. 100% Small Business (all proposals shall be placed in this category), 8a Small Business and HUBZone Small Business.

2. Rank each category proposal by the total price of the initial project, Repair Dorm 655.

3. Evaluate all proposals in each category for technical acceptability.

4. Evaluate past performance of the technically acceptable 100% small business proposals until ten (10) receive ratings of substantial, satisfactory or unknown (neutral) confidence. If one or more 8a or HUBZone small businesses rank in the top eight (8) steps 5 and 6 below will be utilized to identify the on-ramp pool contractors only.

5. Evaluate past performance of the technically acceptable 8a small business proposals until three (3) receive ratings of substantial, satisfactory or unknown (neutral) confidence.

6. Evaluate past performance of the technically acceptable HUBZone small business proposals until three (3) receive ratings of substantial, satisfactory or unknown (neutral) confidence.

7. At this time, 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 will be ranked based on an integrated assessment of all selection criteria in each small business category.

8. Select up to six (6) 100% small business proposals for award and the remaining four (4) for the on ramp pool. If one or more 8a or HUBZone small businesses rank in the top eight (8) steps 9 and 10 below will be utilized to identify the on-ramp pool contractors only

9. Select the top one (1) 8a small business proposal for award and the remaining two (2) for the on ramp pool.

10. Select the top one (1) HUBZone small business for award and the remaining two (2) for the on ramp pool.

11. Perform an integrated assessment of the top eight proposals for award of the initial project.

12. Perform an integrated assessment of the on ramp pool proposals rating them one (1) through eight (8). Offerors will be on ramped based on their rating and small business category. For example, if the current 8a contractor is off ramped then the first rated 8a will be on ramped not the first rated 100% small business or HUBZone small business.

13. If no 8a or HUBZone proposals are received the government may award up to eight (8) 100% small businesses and up to eight (8) 100% small business on ramp pool candidates.

If the Government does not receive a minimum of three awardable proposals, the Government's intent is to cancel the solicitation, reevaluate the set-aside, and reissue a new solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is determined to be in its best interest

(c) 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 as well as an overall rating based upon the ratings of both subfactors.

NOTE: An unacceptable rating in either of the two subfactors will result in an overall rating of unacceptable.

Table 1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

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.

Subfactor 1: Project Management 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 construction. This document will be incorporated by reference in the resulting contract (therefore please do not make the PMP in any way in which this would not be possible). This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses the following: 1) the Offeror's approach to hiring qualified key project and support staff, 2) the Offeror's approach to managing the project and accounting for fluctuations in the workload, 3) the Offeror's approach to subcontractor management, 4) how they intend to execute architectural and engineering design requirements during the life of the contract, and 5) a résumé of the Project Manager demonstrating necessary experience. The Government will evaluate the provided résumé to evaluate the experience of the Project Manager to ascertain that they have the necessary experience to execute the various work under the MATOC.

Subfactor 2: Technical Documents for Initial Project

This subfactor evaluates the adequacy of the offeror’s proposal in response to the requirements indicated in the initial project, Repair Dorm 655, on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the project from a technical standpoint and if the proposal contains all documents required in Section L. Please refer to Section L - 3.1.4 for submittal requirements for Subfactor 2.

(d) Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, listed in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

(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 contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph M-2(a). In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

(i) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been completed within the last five years from release of solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will determine relevancy based on the following criteria: 1) Must be a general construction project (including, but not limited to, design- build work and bid-build work in the following divisions: carpentry, road repair, roofing, excavation, interior to include remodeling and interior modifications, electrical, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, masonry, HVAC, fire suppression, fire alarm, mass notification, or welding) and 2) must be valued between $750,000.00 and $10,000,000.00. A Past Performance Relevancy Rating will be assigned based on the ratings listed in Table 4 (below). While projects submitted may be for any of the above disciplines, offerors may not submit more than one project that focuses exclusively on a specific specialty. Multidisciplined projects that encompass a variety of subspecialties will be considered more relevant than those projects that only address single specialties, as these more closely address the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires. Past performance information that fails these conditions will not be evaluated.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

(e) Price Factor

(1) The Government will evaluate the proposed price for the initial project, Attachment 3, in order to determine which offerors’ total price represents the best value to the Government. The Contracting Officer will use price competition to determine whether or not an offeror's pricing is fair and reasonable in addition to other methods required in FAR 15.404.

(2) Funding for the initial project is not presently available. The Government is not obligated to award the project at any time. However, offerors are required to guarantee pricing for the initial project until 31 December 2019, as the Government reserves the right to award the project as a Task Order at a later date should funds become available.