Attch 8 Section M_(Updated 8JUN20).pdf

FA4626-20-R-0018 Attachment 8

Section M SOURCE SELECTION LPTA with Past Performance

1. Evaluation Criteria

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 acquisition.gov. 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, Rank by Price - Proposals will initially be ranked by total evaluated price from lowest to highest.

Step 2, Technical Acceptability Review - Proposals technical acceptability will then be evaluated. The Government, at its discretion, may continue technical evaluations until the Contracting Officer determines that a sufficient number of technically acceptable proposals have been identified to permit determination of price fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition. Those proposals deemed technically acceptable will proceed to the next step.

Step 3, Past Performance Review - Starting with the lowest ranked price technically acceptable proposal, the Government will evaluate the offerors past performance and rate its acceptability based on the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. If the lowest price offeror is found to be reasonable and realistic, technically acceptable, and past performance is determined “Acceptable”, evaluation is complete. If the lowest priced offeror’s past performance is not “Acceptable,” the next lowest priced offeror’s past performance will be evaluated. Evaluating next lowest priced offeror’s past performance will continue until an offeror is rated “Acceptable” or until all offerors are evaluated. If no offeror from the evaluated group of technically acceptable proposals from Step 2 is rated “Acceptable” for past performance, the Contracting Officer will re-accomplish Step 2 with the remaining proposals from Step 1 until the Contracting Officer determines that a sufficient number of technically acceptable proposals have been identified to evaluate past performance.

Step 4 Price Analysis- All technically acceptable proposals with an Acceptable past performance rating will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the HICS Boring IDIQ Project.

c. Discussions

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. 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.

2. 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 (Volume 1): Price

Factor 2 (Volume 2): Technical

Factor 3 (Volume 3): Past Performance

b. Factor 1 (Volume 1) - Price

The government shall rank all responsive offers by total evaluated price. An offeror’s total evaluated price will be determined as follows: by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), including options. The offeror’s proposal shall represent the offeror’s best efforts to respond to the solicitation. All technically acceptable proposals with an Acceptable past performance rating (evaluated IAW with step 2 of the evaluation process) will be evaluated for price reasonableness and affordability. Phase-In CLINs will be counted towards total evaluated price. Price is not assigned a rating;

however, an assessment of reasonableness and affordability will be performed.

1. Price Reasonableness. The techniques and procedure described under FAR 15.404-1(b) will be the primary means of assessing proposal reasonableness. The evaluation techniques described under FAR 15.404-1(c), as determined appropriate, may also be performed in further determining reasonableness of the proposed price.

2. Affordability. The affordability assessment will also consider the total estimated contract price as compared to the projected budget for this project.

3. Balance: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Section B prices and Attachment 2b – Bid Schedule in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. The burden of proof for cost affordability and reasonableness rests with the Offeror. Offerors are advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. An assessment that the proposal is not reasonable or affordable will result in the offer being unacceptable for award.

c. Factor 2 (Volume 2) - Technical

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 factor:

Technical Sub-Factor 1 – BORING CAPABILITIES

ACCEPTABLE – Offeror shall have access to a boring machine with the capabilities to accomplish all directional bores to meet the CLIN items and requirements within the specifications. Offeror must also provide evidence of at least one job that validates its experience in boring operations over the past five years as of the date of issue of the solicitation. Provide written documentation and projects with “point of contacts” to support this relevancy.

UNACCEPTABLE – Offeror does not have access to a boring machine with the capabilities to accomplish all directional bores to meet the CLIN items and requirements within the specifications. Offeror does not provide evidence of at least one job that validates its experience in boring operations over the past five years as of the date of issue of the solicitation, or company did not provide written documentation and projects with “point of contacts” to support this relevancy.

d. Factor 3 (Volume 3) - Past Performance

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 C-1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

TABLE C-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.)

(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 must be ongoing 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.

(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 questionnaires (PPQs) (Attachment 9) 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.

(iii) 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). 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

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a 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.”

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm 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. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.