Attach_10_Section_M.docx

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (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 C, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 dated 27 January 2017. 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(s) 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 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.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals in the following manner:

Step 1 - Offers will initially be ranked by price from lowest to highest and will then be evaluated for responsiveness in how each offeror conformed to solicitation requirements. Those offerors deemed as responsive will then be evaluated for technical acceptability. The Government will evaluate offerors until at least three have been determined “Technically Acceptable.” Once this has occurred, no further technical evaluations will be conducted regardless of the number of offers remaining. If the Government receives three or fewer proposals in response to the solicitation, all proposals will then be evaluated for technical acceptability.

Step 2 - Evaluate the three lowest priced offerors’ past performance. If all past performance is determined “Acceptable,” evaluation is complete. Should any of the three lowest priced offeror’s past performance be determined as “Not Acceptable,” return to step 1 and evaluate the next lowest priced offeror’s technical acceptability or continue with step 1 until the Government receives three Technically Acceptable and responsive proposals. If the Government exhausts all proposal evaluations and does not obtain three acceptable proposals, award will be made based on the acceptable proposals received.

Step 3 - Evaluate the acceptable proposals to determine whether the prices are fair and reasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3) and balanced and realistic (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1). If price is determined to not be fair and reasonable or unbalanced and unrealistic proceed to next lowest offeror until an offeror is determined to have fair and reasonable pricing or all proposals are evaluated.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Repair Manhole Building 1440.

c. 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.

d. 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.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. 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: Price

Factor 2: Technical

Factor 3: Past Performance

b. Price Factor

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced or unrealistic may not be considered for award.

(1) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements (basic award).

(2) Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(3) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Schedule B prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Schedule B will be used to assist the Contracting Officer in determining Price Reasonableness. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

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. 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.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Technical Experience

(1) Offerors shall provide a resume for his/her site superintendent. The resume shall document three or more projects (including project title, date project completed and point of contact with phone number and email) reflecting experience with locating utilities and hydro vac. The time period for this experience shall be from 1 January 2013 to the solicitation issue date.

(2) Offerors shall provide a resume for his/her site superintendent. The resume shall document three or more projects (including project title, date project completed, and point of contact with phone number and email) reflecting experience with excavation and backfill including compaction. The time period for this experience shall be from 1 January 2013 to the solicitation issue date.

(3) Offerors shall provide a resume for his/her site superintendent. The resume shall document two or more projects (including project title, date project completed, and point of contact with phone number and email) reflecting experience with concrete work including installing concrete anchors, form work, installing rebar, placing and finishing. The time period for this experience shall be from 1 January 2013 to the solicitation issue date.

ACCEPTABLE: Offeror has provided all required information as listed from 1 thru 3 above and has all of the required experience.

UNACCEPTABLE: Offeror has not provided all required information as listed from 1 thru 3 above or the Offeror does not have all of the required experience.

d. 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.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

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.”

(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 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.

(i) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort may be ongoing—surpassing 80% completion—or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated and will be considered as “unknown.”

(ii) 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). 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 information forms (PIFs) 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