Atch_22,_SECTION_M_-_EVALUATION_BASIS_FOR_AWARD_2JAN19.pdf

FA469019RA003 Attachment 22

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-I. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0. Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Price-Past Performance Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price. Offeror’s technical proposal and past performance, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

Awards will be made to responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph M-II below.

1.2 Evaluation Process: The evaluation process to be used is as follows. Successful completion of each step is required to advance to the next step in the evaluation process:

Step 1 – Perform compliance review on all proposals to assess compliance with terms and conditions of the solicitation, completed representation and certifications and acknowledgement of all amendments.

Step 2 – Evaluate technical proposals for technical acceptability.

Step 3 – Evaluate the price for reasonableness and realism. For a price to be determined realistic, the offeror’s sample project TEP will not be less than 20% of the average of all proposals receiving a Technically Acceptable rating. Proposals deemed reasonable and realistic will be ranked by price, lowest first, and proceed to the next step.

Step 4 –Assess past performance confidence beginning with the lowest priced, reasonable, technically acceptable offeror. Past performance evaluations will continue until the Government identifies the five (5) lowest priced, reasonable, technically acceptable offerors with “Substantial Confidence” ratings or until the Government evaluates all technically acceptable proposals.

Step 5 – Conduct an integrated assessment of the price and past performance ratings of all proposals for which a past performance evaluation was completed.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award to a target of three (3) contracts.

The Government reserves the right to award more than or fewer than the target number of three (3) contracts as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award the sample project to the awarded firm providing the lowest price for the sample project, subject to the availability of funds. The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 120 calendar days available to the Government for awarding the sample project.

NOTE: At the time of award, the Government will issue a task order for the minimum guarantee amount to all of the contractors awarded a contract under the MACC.

M-II. PROPOSAL EVALUATION: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

1.0. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Standards:

2.1 Price Factor. Price Proposal will be evaluated at prices proposed for the Sample Project. The offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined utilizing the AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Form (attachment 20g). The sum of all total cost elements as totaled on page 2 of attachment 20g will be the offeror’s TEP. The contractor’s Bid Schedule (attachment 20f) is for contract award purpose only. The bid schedule will be verified to ensure the total contract cost matches the AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Form (attachment 20g) total cost, however the Bid Schedule will not be used for TEP evaluation. The offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. For a price to be determined reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b) and realism as described in FAR 15.404-1(d).

For a price to be determined realistic, the offeror’s sample project total evaluated price will not be less than 20% of the average of all proposals receiving a Technically Acceptable rating.

2.2 Technical Factors. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate technical proposal on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each of the technical subfactors. 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 discussions.

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meets the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Sub-Factor 1 – Sample Project. Provide a complete proposal package as required in order to meet the requirements of the Sample Project. Provide a design and construction approach that describes the design and construction processes that will be used to meet the requirements of the sample project.

2.2.1.1. Measure of Merit. Sample Project is acceptable when the offeror’s Sample Project proposal meets the requirements contained in the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR), General Information and Project Requirements (GIPR), Statement of Work, and General Provisions (attachment 12) to include the standards identified below. The sample project proposal shall include a construction cost and a design/construction approach for the sample project.

2.2.1.2. Standards

Drawings: Drawings must be legible, conform to the requirements contained in the definitions for 65% design, and must conform to the requirements of paragraph 5, Contractor Prepared Design Documents, of the General Provisions (attachment 12).

Specifications: All sections required by paragraph 12 of the sample project GIPR (attachment 20a) must be legible, edited to match the project scope, and conform to the requirements of paragraph 5 of the General Provisions (attachment 12).

Design Submittals: The 65% design submittal must contain 90% of the elements required by the definitions in the General Provisions. The elements must be indexed or otherwise easily identifiable, for example, the design calculations for primary structure components (foundations, structures, roofs, etc.) should be clearly identified as such.

2.2.2. Sub-Factor 2 – Program Management Plan (PMP). The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive PMP developed specifically for implementation of this Contract. The PMP shall discuss the management approach used for design, site clearing and demolition, construction, and completion/turn-over of project. The information in the PMP shall make it clear that the Offeror has the ability to deliver a quality product and effectively manage the designers, consultants, and subcontractors on the team, as well as the ability to coordinate all work throughout the design and construction phases. The PMP shall include an explanation of the total project team management approach for both the design team and the construction team as well as a résumé for the Project Manager. List any relevant experience or certifications the Project Manager may have that will help the Government determine their ability to oversee projects under the MACC contract.

2.2.2.1. Measure of Merit. This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses the items identified above in paragraph 2.2.2. Ensure your plan addresses (1) your approach to hiring qualified key project and support staff, (2) your approach to managing the project and accounting for fluctuations in the workload, (3) your approach to subcontractor management, and (4) how you intend to execute architectural and engineering design requirements during the life of the contract.

2.3. Past Performance Factor: The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of present and past performance in providing construction services that meet the customers’ needs, and assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this effort. Performance confidence is assessed as the overall performance factor level based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance on individual projects/contracts.

2.3.1 Recency: Offerors must demonstrate performance on all projects/contracts being currently performed and/or that were performed within the last three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation. This includes contracts that were awarded prior to this period, but still had performance during the recency timeframe. Past performance information that does not meet these conditions will not be further evaluated.

2.3.2 Relevancy: Offerors will be evaluated on the extent the offeror’s past performance is deemed relevant to this requirement. The Government will determine relevancy based on the following criteria: 1) Relevant past performance information must demonstrate design/build and/or bid-build construction experience with multiple projects, such as new construction, renovation, alteration and repair, with associated architectural and engineering work, with multiple disciplines, such as carpentry, roofing, excavation, interior finishes, to include remodeling and interior modifications on real property facilities, electrical, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, masonry, HVAC, fire suppression, fire alarm, and other major trades) and 2) having a project values of $250,000.00 and above. While projects submitted may be for any of the above divisions, offerors may not submit more than one project that focuses exclusively on a specific specialty. Multiple projects of a similar nature that encompass a variety of subspecialties are acceptable. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Past performance information that fails these conditions will not be evaluated. Joint venture partners, Mentor-Protégé, and Teaming/Partnering Arrangement’s past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation, however, past performance on critical subcontractors shall not be considered. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing past performance:

Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on stand alone or multiple project(s) (such as a SABER, MATOCs or MACCs) exceeding $250,000, and the contractor performed as prime contractor. This includes IDIQ contracts and individual Task Orders.

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on project(s) exceeding $250,000, and the contractor performed as a critical subcontractor. This includes stand-alone contracts and individual Task Orders (Not IDIQs, MATOCs, JOCs, etc.)

Somewhat Relevant

Past/present performance effort involved, at a minimum, single-disciplined construction work, exceeding $250,000, as either a prime or subcontractor.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the construction scope and magnitude of effort.

2.3.3. Past Performance Quality: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts related in the past performance questionnaire responses, Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or similar systems, interviews with Government customers and, as applicable, commercial clients, when assigning a past performance confidence rating. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.3.1. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or teaming arrangement has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

2.3.4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition 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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is 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 and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence”. A strong record of recent and relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

e considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.