MACC_Section_M_V3.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror's capabilities and proposals for the MACC requirement.

M-2.0 Overview: By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and past performance records. Failure to meet any individual requirement shall result in an offer being eliminated from further consideration.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Up to ten (10) awards may be made from the offerors found technically acceptable that demonstrate the best combination of SEED project price and past performance confidence rating. The Government anticipates awarding up to ten (10) contracts, but reserves the right to award less than ten (10).

M-2.1 Basis for Contract Award: This is a competitive, best value, trade-off source selection with technical acceptability as a gate and past performance is significantly more important than price. Total evaluated price (TEP) is the aggregate total of all elements of the Seed project proposal price. The proposals will be ranked by overall TEP and evaluated for technical acceptability starting with the lowest priced proposal.

The evaluation team will review the lowest priced offeror’s technical proposal first. The team will continue to evaluate all offeror’s technical proposals. Once all technical proposals have been evaluated, the evaluation team will begin the past performance evaluation beginning with the lowest priced offeror that received an acceptable technical rating. If the lowest priced offeror receives a past performance rating of “Substantial Confidence,” an award will go to that offeror.

Evaluations will continue until up to ten (10) technically acceptable offerors have been deemed to receive a past performance rating of “Substantial Confidence”. If the lowest priced offeror receives a Past Performance rating of less than “Substantial Confidence,” evaluation will continue in order of price until up to potentially ten (10) technically acceptable offerors receive a Past Performance rating of “Substantial Confidence” or until all proposals have been evaluated.

The Government reserves the right to make award to less than ten (10) offerors if the Government determines fewer awards would be in its best interest. All awards will be made based on an integrated assessment best value award decision, considering technical acceptability, and past performance-price tradeoff.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than a lower priced technically acceptable offeror if the lower priced technically acceptable offeror receives a past performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision, considering acceptable technical acceptability and past performance/price. The SEED project will be awarded to the offeror that’s proposal represents the best value to the Government after the assessment best value award decision. The Government reserves the right to enter into discussions if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors that are determined to be technically unacceptable to the point of not being able to made acceptable through discussions will not be further considered for award.

M-3.0 Evaluation: Below is a more detailed outline of how each section of the proposal will be evaluated. 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.

M-3.1 SEED project/Price: This project is a viable MacDill AFB requirement and the Government intends to issue a task order upon the availability of funds. “Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs.” All awardees will be awarded task orders to cover the minimum guarantee of $500. In the case that funding for the SEED project is available, the awardee of the SEED project’s minimum guarantee will be met by their evaluated price in lieu of the $500 minimum guarantee, but will still be required to attend the post award conference. All awardees will be required to attend the post award conference. Offerors must include a price for the SEED project listed in Section J, “Attachments.” The Government will use the offeror’s 48-division CSI cost estimate, to determine if the offeror presents a valid technical case for its price.

M-3.2 Factor 2- Technical Rating: Technical acceptability will be evaluated based on the evaluation factors listed below. In order to be considered for award, there must be an “acceptable” rating in each of the three subfactors. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable, using the rating and descriptions outlined in Table A-1 below.

Sub Factor 1- General Project Construction Experience (see section L-2.3): To obtain an acceptable rating the offeror must submit: (1) eight design/build projects in the 12 project types listed, or (2) eight stand-alone design and eight stand-alone construction projects in the 12 project types listed or (3) a combination thereof that prove technical experience that meet the requirements of (8) design and (8) construction in the 12 project types listed.

a. Each has a completed Project Summary IAW the format at Attachment 3.

b. Each is clearly $500,000 or greater.

c. Each clearly matches the type and scope of work.

d. Each is construction complete and accepted by the facility owner within five (5) years of close of this solicitation.

Sub Factor 2- DoD Project Construction Experience (see section L-2.3): To obtain an acceptable rating the offeror must prove he/she has experience in construction projects of varying disciplines equal to or greater than $200,000 in scope on DoD military installations completed within the last five (5) years of the close of this solicitation. The Department of Defense includes U.S. Department of the Army, the U.S. Department of the Navy, the U.S.

Department of the Air Force, and U.S. Marine Corps (does not include the VA, Homeland Security, or any other Non-DoD Federal agencies).

a. Each has a completed Project Summary IAW the format at Attachment 3.

b. Each is clearly $200,000 or greater.

c. Each clearly has multiple disciplines

d. Each is construction complete and accepted by the facility owner within five (5) years of close of this solicitation.

e. if the offeror has a project listed to meet a requirements in Sub Factor 1-

Construction Experience, and it was accomplished on a DoD installation as defined in Subfactor 2, Paragraph, a of section L, they may list it again to meet the DoD requirement.

Sub Factor 3- Seed Project Proposal Accuracy (see section L-2.3)

SEED Project Proposal Accuracy: To obtain an acceptable rating the offeror must prove that they fully understand the seed project and their proposal fully and accurately addresses criteria a-g below:

a. Project Content 48 Division C.S.I. evaluation: To receive an “acceptable” rating, the contractor must show he/she understands the full scope of the seed project and has accurately determined the necessary types and quantities of labor, material, and equipment required to complete the project.

b. Specifications for 65% design: The 65% design specifications will be evaluated to ensure each of the disciplines are completely and accurately addressed, correct design guidance/criteria is used, and the specifications match the drawings, calculations, and rest of the design package

c. Plans for a 65% design Drawings: The 65% design drawings will be evaluated to ensure each of the disciplines are completely and accurately addressed, correct design guidance/criteria is used, and the drawings match the specifications, calculations, and rest of the design package. To receive an “acceptable” rating, the contractor’s drawings must be complete, accurate, and in accordance with tri-service standards.

d. Applicable Guidance/criteria: MacDill Design Guide (SOW Appendix 1) and all applicable DoD, Federal, state and local codes and guidance. To receive an “acceptable” rating, the contractor must list applicable codes and demonstrate compliance with the applicable codes and guidance.

e. Design Calculations: To receive an “acceptable” rating, the contractor’s design calculations must be accurate and include HVAC load, exhaust fan volumes, electrical loads, riser calculations, and panel load calculations.

f. Gant Chart: Outlining major work elements. To receive an “acceptable” rating, the chart must be complete, show all major tasks, a logical sequence of events, and complete design and construction within the allotted schedule.

g. Materials/Equipment: Listings/cut sheet of Key Materials/Equipment Items over $5,000 that will be used. To receive an “acceptable” rating, the list must be complete and all items shall meet design requirements and the MacDill Design Guide.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions from the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C1, when assessing recent, relevant contracts

M-3.3 Factor 3 - Past Performance: As stated in section L, Factor III(a), the past performance submission shall be for each of the relevant performance references for the projects listed in Technical Subfactor 1. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The performance confidence assessment shall be based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

1. Performance Surveys: Using the attachment 4 questionnaire, the Government will attempt to conduct a survey of each of the offeror's performance references. The government may also directly contact the references to get additional feedback from the customers. The government will then compile the information and do an overall assessment of the offerors past performance on the projects he/she submitted to meet the project experience requirement.

2. Independent Government Research: The government will also obtain data, focusing on and targeting projects relevant to the scope of the solicitation, from other government and commercial sources to assess the offerors past performance. This information will also be compiled and assessed separately from the offeror’s performance references.

3. Overall Past Performance Rating: An overall confidence assessment rating is assigned through an analysis of the offeror's projects submitted in response to general construction and DoD construction experience and independent government research. This overall Past Performance confidence assessment rating will be evaluated on Recency, Relevancy and Quality as identified in the tables below:

Recency: A Recency determination will be made for each performance reference provided.

Recency is defined as any project completed within the past five (5) years from the date of the close of the solicitation. Past performance that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy: For each past performance citation reviewed, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Past performance that is found to be, Not Relevant will not be evaluated for quality.

Table C-1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions from the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition 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.

Performance Quality: For each recent and relevant past performance reference, a performance quality assessment will determine how well the contractor performed on the contract. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing performance quality.

Rating Definition Exceptional (E) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good (G) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory (S) Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal (M) Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory (U) Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know. Was not relevant and no rating was given.

Performance Confidence Assessment: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. The Government will assign one of the following Performance Confidence Ratings from Table 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures at the overall past performance factor level.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival 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.

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.” Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and 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 this best value tradeoff as is consistent with the stated evaluation critereia.

M-4. Assessment: The Government reserves the right to contact any and all references. This assessment will be accomplished using both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources. The assessment of past performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9.

M-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.

M-6. Discussions: The Government contemplates awards without discussions; however, to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value it may be necessary to conduct discussions. If discussions are deemed necessary, such discussions will be based on price and/or past performance-related issues and/or issues with the technical portion of the proposal and 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. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal.

Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions.

The contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted.

Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals which are fully and clearly acceptable and without the need for additional information. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offerors may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the contracting officer during any discussion period.

M-7. Rejection of Non-Compliant Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments and/or contract terms and conditions.

M-8. Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The Contracting Officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the Contracting Officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility. As a minimum requirement, all offerors are requested to submit, as part of the Price proposal, the following:

M-9. Bonding: The offeror shall provide proof from the offeror’s bonding company that their firm has, as a minimum, $5,000,000 in available bonding capability.