Atch 03- FA486119RA009 Section M.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize Subjective Trade-off source selection procedures, where past performance is significantly more important than price, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The acquisition will be conducted in accordance with Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016 and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 Source Selection revised 25 May 2018. Trade-offs will be made between past performance and price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. A contract shall be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by evaluation factors of this request for proposal) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements at a fair and reasonable price. This may result in an award 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 superior past performance of a technically acceptable higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

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. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, therefore each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

2. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Nellis/Creech Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineer Requirements (SABER) as a HUBZone set-aside.

3. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimate, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

4. CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

5. EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Proposals

The basis of award will be Subjective Trade-off with Past Performance being significantly more important than Price, when evaluating technically acceptable proposals. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

B. Order of Importance

In the subjective trade-off, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between price and past performance. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

All proposals will be evaluated on the following: Factor 1 (Technical), Factor 2 (Price), and Factor 3 (Past Performance). Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price.

C. Evaluation Methodology

The Government shall evaluate all offers to make one (1) award under the SABER Program. The specific steps for evaluations are as follow:

D. Factor 1 - TECHNICAL (Volume 1)

Initially, the technical evaluation team will evaluate all proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed. An unacceptable assessment in any of the technical elements (Demonstration Project Proposal, Quality Control Plan, HUBZone Status and Bonding) will result in an overall technically unacceptable rating.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Acceptable- Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable- Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Demonstration Project Proposal

(1) The minimum requirements for the completeness of the demonstration project are:

(a) A complete 35% design is one that includes all the required elements listed in Attachment 1, SABER Specifications, (paragraph 4.j.1 Statement of Work, paragraph 4.i Cost Proposal, paragraph 4.j.3 Design Drawings, and paragraph 4.k.2 35% Design) for RKMF 19-0080- Repair Restrooms and Infrastructure 99 FSS Bldg 20.

Quality Control Plan

(1) The minimum requirements for an acceptable Quality Control Plan are:

(a) Provide a detailed narrative to include any graphic representations of the Offerors plan to ensure successful execution of the SABER program and subsequent task order projects. The offeror's proposal shall clearly convey the following:

(i) Overall understanding of design review, submittal review, construction management, and closeout processes and logical measures to ensure the successful execution of the task order projects;

(ii) Clear processes for the logical, effective, and expedient documentation and resolution of quality problems;

(iii) Logical measures to identify poor performing subcontractors, to include appropriate corrective action, management tools, methods, and documentation;

(iv) Key quality control personnel (with no overlapping duties and responsibilities) and the extent of their authority;

(v) Methods and frequency of inspection for ongoing projects; and

(vi) Methods the offeror will utilize to update the Government on project status and how interface with Government inspectors will be accomplished (status updates shall be a minimum of weekly).

*Note: The offeror's Quality Control Plan will be incorporated into the contract if selected for award.

Furthermore, the awardee's successful execution and effectiveness of their Quality Control Plan will be evaluated at the conclusion of each ordering period via the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Bonding Capability

(1) The minimum requirement for an acceptable Bonding Capability is:

(a) Provide information, from an acceptable surety in accordance with FAR 28.202 Acceptability of Corporate Sureties, reflecting sufficient bonding capability to meet the maximum task order amount ($2,000,000) as well as a potential aggregate amount of $20,000,000.

E. Factor 2 - PRICE (Volume 2)

Next, the Government shall evaluate all offerors' price proposals for completeness and accuracy. Failure to provide complete pricing as required by Section B of the solicitation may cause the Government to determine that the offer is nonresponsive. The Government will then rank all offers from lowest to highest price.

1) The Offeror's price will be evaluated for award purposes. To determine price, each coefficient and dollar amount proposed by the Offeror, listed in Section B will be multiplied by the estimated dollar amount or quantity assigned to each line item. All dollar totals will be added together for each annual period. Then the totals for each annual period will be added together to identify each Offeror's evaluated price. All five years will be considered in determining the Offeror's evaluated price.

2) Analysis of Price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. Price realism analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the Offeror's price proposal. Reasonableness will be based on the total estimated price and evaluated design and construction prices compared to historical actuals for similar effort(s), as well as comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). For a price to be 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 adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

F. Factor 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume 3)

The Government will perform past performance evaluations on all offers. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror's ability to successfully perform the requirements of this effort. The evaluation is based on recency, relevancy, and a demonstrated record of performance quality.

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror's demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet the users' needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror's past performance, focusing on recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources.

1) 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 performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Efforts that have not yet been completed must have at least six (6) months of performance from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails these conditions may not be evaluated. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the information in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

2) Relevancy Assessment - The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the SABER. Relevant efforts/projects are defined as construction efforts/projects meeting the following:

a. (Magnitude) - Efforts/projects valued at $150,000 or greater.

b. (Scope) - Efforts/projects involve maintenance, repair, alternation or new construction of real property.

For recent and relevant past performance, the government will establish a degree of relevancy.

Construction efforts/projects showing the capability to perform and manage a wide range of construction trades including: design, carpentry, road repair, roofing, excavation, interior and exterior electrical, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, concrete masonry, and welding, as well as the ability to manage multiple relevant efforts simultaneously will be considered for the degree of relevancy.

For example, contractors that demonstrate their ability to manage multiple relevant efforts/projects concurrently would be more relevant than a contractor that manages efforts/projects non-concurrently.

Additionally, a contractor who has previous experience managing a multi-disciplined project would be more relevant than a contractor who performed a project valued at involving a single construction discipline.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 2 - Relevancy Assessment: Adjectival Rating- Description

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

3) Performance Quality - For past performance determined recent and relevant, the quality review will consist of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, CCASS or similar systems, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may also include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. Particular attention will be paid to the following areas, which are addressed in the performance questionnaire: project management; technical performance; safety/labor compliance;

customer satisfaction; change and cost control management; and quality control program. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse 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. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

4) Assigning Ratings - As a result of review of all three aspects of past performance, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the areas addressed by the past performance questionnaire (project management, technical performance, safety/labor compliance, customer satisfaction, change and cost control management, and quality control program), the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Neutral Confidence" rating.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments:

TABLE 3 - 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.

6. BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF

For the sake of efficiency, the government will perform a best value trade-off between the lowest priced offeror in each of the performance confidence assessment categories (Table 3 above), in order to determine the best value offeror. For the purposes of the trade-off, past performance will be considered significantly more important than price.

7. DISCUSSIONS

It is the Government's intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that each offeror submit their best terms with their initial proposal. However, 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.

8. 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 evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.