3 Section M 20 Nov 19.pdf

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors for Award (Dated 20 Nov 19)

M1. EVALUATION STRUCTURE

The resulting contract from this acquisition will be a firm-fixed price C-Type contract. The Government will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection procedures to conduct a 100% small business set-aside competition.

M2. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

(1) This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). Award will be made to a single offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in this solicitation, represents the lowest price technically acceptable to the Government.

(2) Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. Unreasonably high/unrealistically low, unbalanced, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be the grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques.

M2.1. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single award contract as a result of this solicitation. As set forth in FAR 15.306(a), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. 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 may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the acceptable proposals.

M2.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

By submission of a proposal, an offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. If solicitation amendments are issued, an offer accedes to all amendment requirements. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and any solicitation amendments 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”.

M3. EVALUATION FACTORS and SUBFACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Evaluation Category Factor Subfactor

M3.1. Technical M3.1.1. Factor 1. Product Approach

M3.1.2. Factor 2. Project Approach.

M3.1.3. Factor 3. Project Management Plan

M3.1.3.1. Management Approach M3.1.3.2. Schedule Development and Adherence

M.3.2. Past Performance

M.3.3. Price M.3.3.1. Price Proposal Information Reasonableness

M.3.3.2. Price Rounding

M3.1. TECHNICAL

Technical Factor. The Technical evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The technical rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The technical evaluations shall utilize the technical acceptable/unacceptable rating method listed in Table 1. There is no separate rating assigned to the individual factors and no order of importance is stipulated. Factors are simply used for evaluation purposes to derive a Factor rating. Any factor or subfactor that is determined to be unacceptable will result in an unacceptable rating for the entire technical factor.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following three (3) technical factors: Product Approach, Project Approach, and Project Management Plan.

M3.1.1. Factor 1: Product Approach:

Criteria: The offeror shall provide a comprehensive product approach developed specifically for implementation of this RFP. The product approach shall demonstrate the offerors ability to meet the requirements stipulated within the specifications. The product approach shall be suitable for the scope and complexity of the specifications and identified within the solicitation. The product approach shall include a specification sheet for each type of light fixture proposed, the types of fixtures per building, and the number of emergency lights per building.

Technical Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates through a written product approach the ability to meet the criteria and specification in section 01010. Simply restating criteria will result in an unacceptable rating as the contractor has not shown an ability to complete the project.

M3.1.2. Factor 2: Project Approach:

Criteria: The offeror shall provide a comprehensive project approach developed specifically for the sample facility detailed in section L para L7.1.2. The project approach shall include a detailed staging plan, removal and install plan, and a disposal plan.

Technical Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates through a written project approach plan the ability to meet the criteria in the specifications and Section L. Simply restating criteria will result in an unacceptable rating as the contractor has not shown an ability to complete the project.

M3.1.3. Factor 3: Project Management Plan (PMP): This factor evaluates the following two

(2) sub factors.

The offeror shall provide a comprehensive PMP developed specifically for implementation of this RFP. The PMP shall demonstrate the offerors ability to meet the requirements stipulated within the specifications. The PMP shall be suitable for the scope and complexity of the specifications and identified within the solicitation. The PMP shall include and address each of the following:

M3.1.3.1. Subfactor 1: Management Approach

Criteria: The PMP shall define the roles of the contractor management team, to include organization of Project Management, Superintendent, and the overall approach by the contractor to manage all aspects of the project efficiently.

Technical Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates through a written plan for management approach the ability to meet the criteria. Simply restating criteria will result in an unacceptable rating as the contractor has not shown an ability to complete the project

M3.1.3.2. Subfactor 2: Schedule Development and Adherence

Criteria: The PMP shall include a schedule of work encompassing the entire period of performance of the project. The Government anticipates this project lasting 365 calendar days.

Technical Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates through a schedule a clear understanding of the requirement. The tasks outlined will be evaluated for realistic time frames for each task.

M3.2. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation and SOW requirements. The government will evaluate each offeror’s past performance on recency/relevancy as well as assign each offeror a confidence rating based on the past performance response. Recency/relevancy will be determined with the ratings of “Recent and Relevant” or “Not Recent and/or Relevant” based on how recent and relevant the offeror’s past performance is to the SOW requirements.

Confidence will be determined with the ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on the performance records provided with the past performance and the governments’ internal research.

Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems.

Past performance areas of evaluation include:

- Business Relations

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Cost Control

- Customer Satisfaction

- Compliance with Socio-Economic Goals

M3.2.1. Overall Ratings As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the past performance evaluated, offerors will receive one overall past performance evaluation rating. The Past Performance evaluation rating is shown in Table 2 – Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method.

Table 2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival 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.

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.

M3.2.2. Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated past and present work record that is recent and relevant to this acquisition to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements as proposed. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s present and recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to Technical and Price.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as, but not limited to:

- the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

- Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); or other databases;

- Interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers or other government personnel; and commercial sources.

M3.2.3. Recency/Relevancy Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent and relevant. To be recent, the current effort must be ongoing or must have been performed for a minimum of six (6) months during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. To be relevant past performance must be similar in scope and complexity and for similar positions. Past performance information that fails this condition will be deemed “Unacceptable” and shall receive unknown confidence.

M3.2.4. Performance Confidence Assessment

Any past performance that is determined recent and relevant will be evaluated for governments’ confidence. Utilizing responses from questionnaires and other government performance evaluation sources the government will assign a rating to each contractor representing the governments’ confidence in the contractors’ ability to perform the contract based on past performance. Table 2 – Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method for ratings and description.

M3.2.5. Joint Ventures.

In a joint venture, past performance for both businesses will be evaluated equally.

M3.2.6. Teaming Arrangements.

Teaming Arrangements are characterized by two or more business entities that are working together under the representation of one of the existing business entities for the duration of the contract. A teaming arrangement is not a formal merger of two or more business entities. The Government recognizes the validity and integrity of teaming arrangements as detailed in FAR Subpart 9.6. All offerors are encouraged to review FAR Subpart 9.6, to acquaint themselves with its details. Since the Government can only determine the responsibility of the prime contractor, per FAR 9.604(b), in accordance with FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, offerors must identify in their offer any teaming arrangement to be considered and completely identify the relationships/responsibilities of the teaming members.

M3.3. PRICE

The Government will only evaluate the lowest price proposal. If this proposal is determined acceptable in both technical and past performance, the price will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and completeness. If the offeror that has the lowest price is found unacceptable and any category their entire proposal will be considered unacceptable and the next lowest price will be evaluated. This process will continue until a fully acceptable proposal is found. Once a proposal is fully acceptable, no other proposals will be evaluated. For example, if the lowest priced proposal receives an acceptable technical and past performance rating and the price is found to be reasonable, balanced, and complete no other proposals will be evaluated. All proposals SHALL include price per fixture.

M3.3.1. Reasonableness

Price reasonableness will be determined through adequate price competition of the Offeror’s total evaluated price; the independent Government estimate; and may also be determined through price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

M3.3.2. Unbalanced Pricing

The Government may determine a proposal “Unacceptable” should the proposed unit prices in the AF Form 3052, be significantly unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance possess an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M3.3.3. Completeness

Price will be considered complete when the offeror has proposed a Firm-Fixed Price for all applicable items in the AF Form 3052. Price will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror provided complete data. Complete data means the offeror provided a proposal that contains a fully completed AF Form 3052. Incomplete offers may be deemed non-responsive and will be determined to be “Unacceptable”.

M.3.3.4. Total Evaluated Price

The price submitted on the AF Form 3052 and the SF 1442 shall match and will be considered the offerors total proposed price. This price will be utilized to determine the price factors listed above.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#b312013