Attachment 08 Section L and M Rev 02 A00006.pdf

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

FA487725R0001

SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION BASE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS (SABER)

INDEFINITE-DELIVERY INDEFINITE-QUANTITY (IDIQ)

FA487725R0001 – SECTION L

L-1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

This solicitation is issued for the acquisition of a Simplified Acquisition Base Engineering Requirements (SABER) to support Davis-Monthan AFB construction requirements. The Government intends to execute a Single Award, Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. This acquisition is a Competitive 8(a) set aside. Proposals may only be submitted by 8(a) firms, registered in the North American Industrial Classification System Code (NAICS) of 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. This competitive acquisition will utilize the source selection procedures in accordance with 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

The Government will award one contract from this solicitation to one of the two highest technically rated offerors with fair and reasonable pricing (FAR 15.304(c)), who are also determined responsible (IAW FAR Part 9), after evaluation in accordance with the solicitation (FAR 52.215-1(f)). The future requirements will be awarded based on the work defined in individual task orders.

To determine an offeror’s price fair and reasonable, a sample/seed project: FBNV220034 - Replace Exhaust Fans and Maintain Plastic Piping in Building 3200, is included in this solicitation. This project will be awarded within 365 days after SABER award. Each offeror will submit an AF 3052 (Attachment

9) and Coefficient Worksheet (Attachment 13) to be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(e).

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and past performance standpoint. However, the Contracting Officer may conduct discussions IAW DFAR 215.306, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Offerors shall not submit more than one offer as the prime in response to this solicitation. Offerors submitting a prime proposal are not permitted to submit a separate proposal as a subcontractor, or team member to another prime. Small business subcontractors are permitted to support multiple primes.

Only offers submitted in accordance with these instructions will be accepted. The Government will retain one copy of each Offeror’s proposal (FAR Subpart 4.8).

In accordance with FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management, Offerors that do not have an active registration in System for Award Management (SAM.gov) at https://sam.gov at the time proposals are due will not be considered for award.

Proposals shall be clear and concise and shall include sufficient detail to permit the Government to adequately validate proposal statements.

The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation at any point before contract award. In the event this solicitation is canceled, the Government has no obligation to reimburse Offerors for any costs incurred.

Post-award notices and debriefings will be conducted IAW FAR 15.505 and 15.506, as applicable.

https://sam.gov/

L-1.1 Required Documents for Submission

Proposals in response to this solicitation shall include the following documentation completed per instructions in Section L:

a. SF 1442 (see L-3.1.4)

b. AF 3052 (see L-3.3.2)

c. Coefficient Worksheet (see L-3.3.3)

d. Financial information (see L- 3.1.2)

e. Self-Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 7) *must be in .xlsx format

f. Industry Certifications if applicable (see L-3.2.5)

g. Any existing Joint Venture or Partnership agreements (see L-3.1.3)

h. Representations and Certifications

i. Up to six (6) work samples with a 236 or 238 NAICS code category (see L-3.2.1 and

3.2.2)

j. Latest Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) evaluation or Past

Performance Questionnaire for each work sample (see L-3.2.4)

L-2 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMISSION

Proposals in response to this solicitation shall be valid for 120 calendar days (FAR 52.215-1(d)).

L-2.1 Operating System and Applications

Proposals will be accessed with the Microsoft Windows 11 Operating System. Proposal files shall be submitted using only the applications listed below:

Application / File Valid Extensions Portable Document Files .pdf Microsoft Word .docx Microsoft Excel .xlsx

L-2.2 File Naming Conventions

Offerors shall follow the basic structure of the file naming convention below for file submissions, where "#" represents the sequential file number. Offerors shall keep the file name under 40 characters.

L-2.3 Hyperlinks

Offerors may not use hyperlinks within and among work samples. Each work sample shall be on a stand-alone basis. Any information required for validation, and not found in its designated file, is assumed omitted from the proposal.

L-2.4 Virus Free Electronic Submission

Offerors shall ensure that proposals are virus free. The Offeror shall certify, in the proposal cover letter, that all electronic proposal information delivered throughout the evaluation is virus free. Offerors should specify the software, version, and virus definition used to check the data.

L-2.5 Multimedia and Graphics

Sound and video (e.g., MPEG) files shall not be imbedded within the proposal. Offerors shall:

a. Avoid submitting large files;

b. Zip files are prohibited;

c. Simplify color palettes and minimize the use of color images or graphics; and

d. Use scanned images only if necessary for signature pages. Any scanned documents shall be OCR searchable.

L-2.6 Proposal Formatting

Proposal formatting does not apply to the Work Samples addressed in Section L-3.2.1.

L-2.6.1 Fonts. Proposal text fonts shall not be smaller than Times New Roman or Arial 11-point font, single column, with normal character spacing and position. The text for charts, tables, graphs, and figures shall be no smaller than Times New Roman or Arial, 10-point font. Line spacing shall be at least single-spaced.

L-2.6.2 Pages. All pages shall be formatted as 8.5” x 11” letter size with one-inch margins all around. 11” x 17” is allowed for charts, tables, and graphs only. Any proposal text included on these pages, other than the information specific to the graphics, will not be considered in the evaluation. One 11” x 17” page will be counted as two pages. All material shall be contained within the page limits identified below for each

L-2.2, TABLE 1: NAMING CONVENTIONS

SECTION FILE NAME

Business Cover Letter Financial Information Partnering Documentation Contract Documentation Industry Certifications

Prime Offeror Name 25R0001 Business Section.pdf

Prior Technical Experience 6 Work Samples Self-Scoring Matrix (SHALL be .xlxs)

Prime Offeror Name 25R0001 PTE Work Sample #X.pdf Prime Offeror Name 25R0001 PTE Scoring Worksheet.xlxs

Sample Project SF 3052 Prime Offeror Name 25R0001 SF3052.xls Coefficient Worksheet Prime Offeror Name 25R0001Coefficient Worksheet section, and all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc., are included in the page count. Not included in the page count are title pages, tables of content, glossaries of abbreviations, acronyms, or definitions, or copies of certificates (i.e. ISO9000). Evaluators will only evaluate up to the maximum number of pages specified in Section L-3.

L-2.6.3 Headers and Footers. Information contained in headers and footers shall only provide company name, solicitation number and title, document name, disclosure markings (FAR 52.215-1(e)), dates, or page numbers. Text sizes shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word, Times New Roman or Arial Narrow, 9-point font.

L-2.7 Proposal Submission

L-2.7.1 Questions Submission. Questions in response to this solicitation are due no later than the date and time specified in PIEE. All questions shall be submitted via email and only to the Points of Contact below. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to confirm receipt.

Perry Rinato, Perry.Rinato.2@us.af.mil K. Andrew Knott, karl.knott@us.af.mil Reference: Solicitation FA487725R0001

Questions shall be submitted using the Request for Information (RFI) Log included with this solicitation as Attachment #2. All questions submitted by the deadline, and their responses, will be posted to the Government Point of Entry (GPE) as an amendment to this solicitation.

L-2.7.2 PIEE. All documents for this solicitation can be found on the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module at https://piee.eb.mil. An overview of the PIEE Solicitation Module is available at:

https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site-pages/solicitation-module

Vendor Access Instructions/Registering for an Account:

https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/uploads/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_Instructions_0_ c6b0773c4b.pdf

Submitting a proposal:

https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/uploads/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_FA_Qs_120e300325.pdf

All vendors can view solicitation in the PIEE Module by selecting “Solicitation Search” under the Support section at the bottom of the page. The SAM.gov site will reference back to this module.

https://piee.eb.mil/ https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/site-pages/solicitation-module https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/uploads/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_Instructions_0_c6b0773c4b.pdf https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/uploads/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_Vendor_Access_Instructions_0_c6b0773c4b.pdf https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/uploads/PIEE_Solicitation_Module_FA_Qs_120e300325.pdf

Additional Resources:

Proposal Manager Instructions in the Solicitation Module:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/documents/Proposal_Manager.pdf

All PIEE Solicitation Module Web Based Training:

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml

L-2.7.3 Proposal Submission. All proposals shall be submitted via the PIEE Solicitation Module.

Proposals are due no later than the date stated on Block 10 of the SF 1442. Offerors shall establish a Proposal Manager account to access documents and submit proposals. The Solicitation Module automatically tracks the date and time of all submissions. Proposals not received by the designated submission deadline will be considered late and not evaluated.

https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/sol/documents/Proposal_Manager.pdf https://pieetraining.eb.mil/wbt/xhtml/wbt/sol/index.xhtml

L-3 PROPOSAL CONTENT

SECTION PROPOSAL SECTION TITLE PAGE LIMIT

L-3.1 Business

L-3.1.1 Cover Letter 1 page L-3.1.2 Financial Information No limit L-3.1.3 Partnering Documentation 15 pages L-3.1.4 Contract Documentation No limit L-3.2.5 Industry Certifications No limit

L-3.2 Prior Technical Experience L-3.2.1 L-3.2.2 6 Work Samples No limit

L-3.2.3 Self-Scoring Worksheet (shall be in .xlsx format) 1 Worksheet L-3.3 Price

L-3.3.2 AF3052 (shall be in .xlsx format) 1 Worksheet L-3.3.3 Coefficient Worksheet (shall be in .xlsx format) 1 Worksheet

L-3.1 Business Section

This section shall include all requirements listed below. Failure to address all required documentation (negative responses included) may render the proposal non-responsive.

L-3.1.1 Cover Letter. Includes:

(a) Name

(b) Address

(c) CAGE Code

(d) Unique Entity Identifier

(e) System for Award Management (SAM.gov) registration expiration date

(f) Proposal validity statement

(g) Virus free electronic submission statement

(h) POC authorized to obligate the company (name, email, and phone)

L-3.1.2 Financial Information. To expedite the responsibility determination required by FAR 9.103(b), provide documentation of the following:

(a) Offeror’s adequate financial resources, or the ability to obtain them (FAR 9.104-3(a)).

i. Evidence may include official letter(s) from financial institutions demonstrating that the

Offeror has the financial resources required to cover all financial commitments.

(b) Offeror’s organization, experience, accounting, and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (FAR 9.104-1(e)).

i. Evidence may include a list of organizational policies or Standard Operating Procedures

(SOPs) which demonstrates the organizational controls and measures of the Offeror.

ii. If providing a list, include the title of each policy or SOP, the date of each document, a brief description of each, and state to which element of FAR 9.104(e) it applies.

(c) Each offeror is required to submit evidence of a minimum bonding capacity greater than or equal to $2M for a single project and greater than or equal to $9.99M aggregate (FAR 28.102-1).

L-3.1.3 Partnering Documentation. Provide documentation, including SBA letters (13 CFR 125.8) as applicable, identifying the arrangement, and disclosing company relationships (FAR 9.603) for any Joint

Venture, Teaming Arrangement, Mentor-Protégé, etc. established for the purposes of this requirement.

Provide the signature pages for any signed agreements as applicable.

L-3.1.4 Contract Documentation. Provide the following:

(a) SF 1442 block 14 through 20. Block 17 shall be filled in with the proposal validity date and the

Total Evaluated Price as calculated on the SABER Coefficient Worksheet (Attachment 13).

Signature by the Offeror on the SF 1442 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

Information provided must match that in SAM.gov and the proposal cover letter. Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in section I through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For sections C through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

(b) In the event this Request for Proposal (RFP) is amended, Offerers shall acknowledge all amendments by completing block 19 of the SF1442 when submitting their final proposal.

LI-3.2 Prior Technical Experience (PTE)

L-3.2.1 Work Samples. The Offeror shall submit a maximum of six (6) unique work samples which demonstrate their prior technical experience against the required HTRO scoring elements, and which comply with the work sample qualifications established in Section L-3.2.2 below. Each individual work sample is not required to apply to all scoring categories listed in the Self-Scoring Worksheet to meet the qualifications as a work sample.

3.2.1.1 When referring to work samples, the terms “contract” and “task order” are not interchangeable. The term “contract” shall refer to a stand-alone contract action and the term “task order” shall refer to an order issued under an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract under FAR 16.505 ordering procedures. IDIQ contracts and Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) shall not be counted as a valid work sample. Orders against IDIQs/BPAs do count as a valid work sample. Multiple task orders issued against IDIQs or BPAs cannot be combined to count as one sample.

3.2.1.2 Work samples shall consist of a single PDF file containing all documentation specifically related to the work sample including but not limited to all contract documentation, past performance, CPARS documentation and any other evidence referenced on the self-scoring worksheet to support a score. The PDF document should contain all documentation related but not limited to the official contract documentation (e.g. Statements of Work, Contract Data Requirement Lists [CDRLs], Contract Section A, etc.), or official corporate documentation (e.g. payroll data, company SOPs, HR manuals, etc.). When contracts are submitted as work samples, the Offeror shall include the signed first page of the contract. The Government will accept a Statement of Fact from the cognizant Government Contracting Officer (CO) or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to confirm missing information, should contractual documents not carry all the information necessary to substantiate the Offeror's scores. This Statement of Fact shall be signed by the cognizant Government CO or COR. The Offeror shall not create any new documentation, such as project narratives, or project descriptions. Work samples shall include sufficient information to substantiate each claim. If a work sample substantiates multiple elements each element must be identified within the work sample. Work samples shall be submitted by the Prime Offeror. Subcontractor proprietary information may be redacted. The redacted work sample must stand on its own.

3.2.1.3 Offerors shall give each work sample an identifier (i.e., WS1-WS6). All pages within the work samples shall be numbered. Work samples shall be provided in their original format;

page numbers may be added. Font, text size, and margin requirements established in Section

L-2.6 do not apply to work sample submissions. Work samples shall be in English.

3.2.1.4 Offerors shall ensure the submitted contract documents furnish the following information for each contract referenced:

(a) Prime Contractor on Project (Company/Division):

(b) CAGE Code:

(c) Unique Entity ID:

(d) Role of Offeror in Effort (Prime Contractor, Subcontractor, JV Partner, Teaming Partner, Predecessor Company, Consultant, Key Personnel)

(e) Project Title:

(f) Contract Specifics:

(g) Complete Name of Customer:

(h) Customer Address and Telephone #:

(i) Contract Number or Citation:

(j) Type of Contract (Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build):

(k) Preponderance of Work (Existing Whole Building Renovation, Utility Infrastructure

Repair/Construction, or Other):

(l) Period of Performance (Calendar Days):

(m) Place of Performance (City, State):

(n) Initial Contract Price: $

(o) Final Amount Invoiced/Invoiced to Date: $ Original Contract Completion Date:

(p) Current Sched Contract Completion Date:

(q) If complete, Final Completion Date:

OR Estimated Percent Completion:

(r) Description of Work:

(s) Relevance: Describe how the work under this contract relates to the relevancy (scope, magnitude, and complexity) to the effort of individual task orders contemplated to be issued on this contract. Indicate the role of the offeror and the percentage of the project actually performed by the offeror and the type of work that was performed. If the offeror performed as part of a teaming arrangement or joint venture, indicate the names of all team members and the work performed by each. If necessary, the offeror may include additional comments to clarify the relevancy of the project.

(t) Project Manager and/or Technical Representative Name:

Office:

Address:

Telephone:

E-Mail:

(u) Contracting Officer and/or Procurement Manager Name:

Office:

Address:

Telephone:

E-Mail:

(v) CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaire

3.2.1.5 General Information

(a) Late proposals will be processed in accordance with the provisions of FAR 52.215-1(c)(3), “Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.”

L-3.2.2 Work Sample Qualifications. Contracting documentation work samples that do not meet the minimum qualifications below will not be considered by the Government in validating their associated self-rated score.

(a) Will have at least six months of active performance within the last five years, as of the proposal due date.

(b) Will fall under NAICS category 236, 238, or in the case of non-Government work samples, work of a similar scope as defined under NAICS 236 or 238.

(c) At least 50% of the Offeror’s total work samples must be work performed as the Prime Contractor.

The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance relative to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Provide no more than six contracts or task orders total. Provide a list of no more than six of the most relevant contracts performed for Government agencies and commercial customers within the last five (5) years.

Work samples will fall into one of the following categories:

(a) Prime Offeror work samples. If a company is proposing as a Joint Venture, work samples will be considered from either member or from the JV. The Prime Offeror may have been a subcontractor or part of a previous JV on the work sample.

(b) Subcontractor work samples. The Subcontractor will have acted as the Subcontractor on the submitted work sample.

L-3.2.3 Self-Scoring Worksheet. The Self-Scoring Worksheet shall be submitted by the Prime Offeror only. The Offeror shall complete the Self-Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 7). Self-rated scores shall be verifiable using the work samples provided. The burden of proof to substantiate the Offeror’s self-rated score rests with the Offeror. The work samples shall include all the evidence required to validate the proposed self-score.

3.2.3.1 The Offeror shall complete the “Offeror Response” columns (in green) on the Self-Scoring Worksheet. The Offeror’s Score will be calculated automatically based on these inputs.

Unless stated otherwise, the Offeror shall not change, adjust, or manipulate any other cells within the Worksheet. The Offeror shall not unprotect the spreadsheet or add any tabs to the file. The Offeror shall accurately rate itself using the scoring instructions found within the self-scoring worksheet.

3.2.3.2 Self-Scoring Worksheet Instructions

(a) The Offeror shall submit Section J (Attachment 7), titled “Self-Scoring Worksheet.” No other format or additional proposal documentation will be considered. The self-scoring worksheet must be submitted as an xlsx formatted document. A scanned version of this document will not be acceptable.

(b) Do not alter rows or columns of the Self Scoring Worksheet.

(c) The Work Samples One (1) through six (6) in the Self-Scoring Worksheet must fall under

NAICS group 236 or 238 and comply with the requirements for submission listed in Section L 3.2.2 Work Sample Qualifications.

(d) The Offeror must only fill in columns which are highlighted green, to include the names of work samples in Column A. In Column B, the Offeror will type “Yes” or “No” in all designated green blocks, with the exception of the “Past Performance Ratings” section where a score will be calculated using the provided scale and input into the green blocks. Do not leave any elements blank. Note: The scoring elements are not minimum requirements.

Column E will be filled with the applicable file name for the referenced line. Column F will be filled with the specific page and specific paragraph numbers where relevant information for the scoring element can be found.

(e) Instructions for each factor are found in the top of each section, as well as in Sections L and M of this solicitation.

(f) The value of points assigned to each element will be based on answers provided on the self-scoring worksheet. The Government will assess validity of supporting documentation and make a downward adjustment to scores accordingly if the documentation does not support the score provided on the self-scoring worksheet. Scoring will not be adjusted upward.

(g) The following shall be used for each section of the self-scoring worksheet:

a. Volume 1- Business Section. The listed documents must be provided. No points will be awarded for this section, but the Government will document in Column B whether or not the documents listed were included in the package.

b. Volume 2- Relevant Experience.

i. Section Title: NAICS Group Relevant Experience Projects.

Details: Is EACH Project submitted under one of the NAICSs listed in NAICS Code Table 236, 238 or equivalent and has each work sample included a required CPARS or PPQ?

Score Applicability: Points can be awarded for up to six (6) work samples.

Column A answer: Insert “Work Sample #, Prime Offeror Name” Column B answer: Yes or No Scoring details: For each Yes = Five Hundred (500) Points. For each No = Zero (0) Points.

ii. Section Title: Past Performance Ratings.

Details: Using the following scale, insert a total score rating for CPARS categories titled Quality, Schedule, Management, and Regulatory Compliance.

Score Applicability: The total score should be the cumulative total of all categories for each work sample.

Column B answer: For each work sample insert a total score rating for CPARS categories for each work sample using the listed point value for either, Satisfactory, Very Good, Exceptional, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory.

Scoring details:

For each Satisfactory = add One Hundred (100) Points For each Very Good = add One Thousand Five Hundred (1,500) Points For each Exceptional = add Three Thousand (3,000) Points For each Marginal = add Negative Five Hundred (-500) Points For each Unsatisfactory = add Negative One Thousand (-1,000) Points

iii. Section Title: NAICS Group Relevant Project Size & Complexity. Details:

Does the value of any single work sample project meet the dollar value listed below?

Score Applicability: Points assigned for each project value for each NAICSgroup with a Yes.

Column B answer: Yes or No Scoring details:

No in any category = Zero (0) Points.

Yes in Project Value >$750K and <$2M = Five Hundred (500) Points.

Yes in Project Value >$250K and <$750K = One Thousand (1,000) Points.

Yes in Project Value >$2K and <$250K = Two Thousand (2,000) Points.

iv. Section Title: Relevant Project Experience with Federal, State, or Local Government.

Details: Do the submitted projects demonstrate relevant construction experience with Government contracts?

Score Applicability: Points assigned for only the highest project value.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Scoring details:

No in any category = Zero (0) Points.

Yes in One (1) to Two (2) work samples = Two Hundred (200) Points.

Yes in Three (3) to Four (4) Work Samples = Five Hundred (500) Points.

Yes in Five (5) to Six (6) work samples = One Thousand (1,000) Points.

v. Section Title: Relevant Experience as Prime Contractor.

Details: Are there any work sample projects where Offeror Performed as the Prime Contractor?

Score Applicability: Points assigned for each category with a Yes.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Scoring details:

No in any category = Zero (0) Points.

Yes in Project Value >$750K and <$2M = Two Thousand (2,000) Points.

Yes in Project Value >$250K and <$750K = Four Thousand (4,000) Points.

Yes in Project Value >$2K and <$250K = Six Thousand (6,000) Points.

vi. Section Title: Relevant Experience as Subcontractor.

Details: Are any work sample projects where Offeror Performed as the Subcontractor?

Score Applicability: Points assigned foreach category with a Yes.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Scoring details:

No in any category = Zero (0) Points.

Yes in Project Value >$750K and <$2M = Two Hundred and Fifty (250) Points.

Yes in Project Value >$250K and <$750K = Five Hundred (500) Points.

Yes in Project Value >$2K and <$250K = One Thousand (1,000) Points.

vii. Section Title: Experience on Multi-Discipline Projects.

Details: Do the submitted projects demonstrate relevant construction experience with multi-discipline projects? (excluding Division 1) Score Applicability: Points assigned for only the highest project value answered “Yes”.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Scoring details:

Yes in One (1) to Two (2) CSI Divisions = Two Thousand (2,000) Points.

Yes in Three (3) to Five (5) CSI Divisions = Four Thousand (4,000) Points.

Yes in greater than (>) Six (6) CSI Divisions = Six Thousand (6,000) Points.

vii. Section Title: Experience on Mechanical Projects (Division 23) Details: Do the submitted projects demonstrate relevant construction experience with mechanical projects?

Score Applicability: Points assigned for only the highest project value answered “Yes”.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Scoring details:

Yes in One (1) – Two (2) Projects equal to or greater than 51% Division 23 = One Thousand (1,000) Points.

Yes in Three (3) – Four (4) Projects equal to or greater than 51% Division 23 = Two Thousand (2,000) Points.

Yes in Five (5) – Six (6) Projects equal to or greater than 51% Division 23 = Two Thousand Five Hundred (2,500) Points.

viii. Section Title: Experience on Electrical Projects (Division 26) Details: Do the submitted projects demonstrate relevant construction experience with electrical projects?

Score Applicability: Points assigned for only the highest project value answered “Yes”.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Scoring details:

Yes in One (1) to Two (2) Projects equal to or greater than 51% Division 26 = One Thousand (1,000) Points.

Yes in Three (3) to Four (4) Projects equal to or greater than 51% Division 26 = Two Thousand (2,000) Points.

Yes in Five (5) to Six (6) Projects equal to or greater than 51% Division 26 = Two Thousand Five Hundred (2,500) Points.

ix. Section Title: Experience with Whole or Partial Building Renovation Details: Do the submitted projects demonstrate relevant construction experience with whole or partial building renovation?

Score Applicability Points assigned for only the highest project value answered “Yes”.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Scoring details:

Yes in One (1) to Two (2) Projects demonstrate whole or partial building renovation = One Thousand (1,000) Points.

Yes in Three (3) to Four (4) Projects demonstrate whole or partial building renovation = Two Thousand (2,000) Points.

Yes in Five (5) to Six (6) Projects demonstrate whole or partial building renovation = Two Thousand Five Hundred (2,500) Points.

x. Section Title: Current Distance from the Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ Visitor Center Details: (By Radius from the corner of Craycroft Rd and Golf Links Rd) Indicate distance from Davis-Monthan AFB (distance from office listed by CAGE code of the prime offeror).

Score Applicability: Points assigned for only the closest selection to Davis- Monthan AFB.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Scoring details:

Yes in greater than Four Hundred and Fifty (450) Miles = One Hundred

(100) Points.

Yes in between One Hundred and Fifty (150) Miles, and Four Hundred and Fifty (450) Miles = One Thousand Five Hundred (1,500) Points.

Yes in less than One Hundred and Fifty (150) Miles = Five Thousand (5,000) Points.

c. Volume 3- SYSTEMS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND CLEARANCES. Industry Certifications: Does the Offeror have any of the following.

i. Section Title: CCM - Certified Construction Manager Details: (See www.cmaanet.org) Does the Offeror have any of the following?

Score Applicability: Points assigned for only the highest value answered “Yes”.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Scoring details:

Yes in Certified Const Manager = One Thousand Five Hundred (1,500) Points.

Yes in Certified Associate Const Manager = One Thousand (1,000) Points.

Yes in Construction Manager in Training = Five Hundred (500) Points

ii. Section Title: Registered Professional Engineer (PE) or Architect.

Details: Does the Offeror have this certification?

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Score Applicability: Points assigned for only a Yes answer.

Scoring details:

No = Zero (0) Points.

Yes = One Thousand Five Hundred (1,500) Points.

iii. Section Title: Certified Safety Manager Details: (See www.naspweb.com/certfied-safety-manager-csm/) Does the Offeror have this certification?

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Score Applicability: Points assigned for only a Yes answer.

Scoring details:

No = Zero (0) Points.

Yes = One Thousand Five Hundred (1,500) Points.

iv. Section Title: Certified Project Manager Professional Details: (See Project Management Institute) Does the Offeror have this certification?

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Score Applicability: Points assigned for only the highest value answered “Yes”.

Scoring details:

Yes in One (1) – Two (2) Certified = One Thousand (1,000) Points.

Yes in Three (3) or more Certified = One Thousand Five Hundred (1,500) Points.

http://w.naspweb.com/certfied-safety-manager-cs

v. Section Title: Superintendent Experience Details: What is the total cumulative experience of all superintendents on staff as evidenced by resumes of identified superintendents.

Column B answer: Yes or No.

Score Applicability: Points assigned for only the highest value answered “Yes”.

Scoring details:

Yes in between Eight (8) and Twenty (20) Years = One Thousand (1,000) Points.

Yes in between Twenty-one (21) and Forty (40) Years = Three Thousand (3,000) Points.

Yes in Forty (40) or more Years = Six Thousand (6,000) Points.

L-3.2.4 CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires. The offeror will submit the latest CPARS evaluation for work samples in which a CPARS evaluation was performed. If a CPARS was not performed on the work sample project, the contractor will submit a Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 10). In the event that a CPARS evaluation or Past Performance Questionnaire is not submitted for a work sample, the work sample will be invalidated. The CPARS or Past performance questionnaire shall be included in the single work sample document.

L-3.2.5 Industry Certifications. The Self-Scoring Worksheet contains multiple certification categories available for scoring as listed in L 3.2.3.2(g)(c). This area is not mandatory.

however, certifications provided for the listed categories will contribute towards total validated points. Documents submitted will demonstrate that the offeror maintains individuals on staff who possess the certifications. Also include resumes to prove experience in this section.

L-3.3 Price Proposal

L-3.3.1 Completion of Price Proposal. The offeror must complete the following sections:

(a) Section A (SF 1442): complete Blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20A, 20B, and 20C. Block 17 shall be filled in with the proposal validity date and the Total Evaluated Price as calculated on the SABER Coefficient Worksheet (Attachment 13). In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in solicitation Sections A through K. This constitutes the model contract.

(b) Pricing Schedule: Insert proposed unit and extended prices into the provided AF 3052 (Attachment 9) for the Seed Project. See L-3.3.2.

(c) Complete the proposed ‘coefficient,’ ‘proposed SABER fee (per project),’ and ‘seed project’ price fields on the SABER Coefficient Worksheet (Attachment 13).

L-3.3.2 AF3052. Using the provided Blank AF 3052 (Attachment 9) please provide a breakout of your price proposal for each of your proposed line items. Identify the name of the line item with division, the unit of measure (ex, each, lot, linear foot, pound, etc.) and the quantity of the item proposed. The line-item cost as the cost of a quantity of one and the extrapolated total and for labor tasks please include the manhours, with the per hour rate and extrapolated total for labor hours. The Government is not requesting certified cost or pricing information. Price will be evaluated in terms using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1(e) to ensure the Government receives a fair and reasonable, balanced price.

The contractor shall include in the prices for the items listed, on the AF 3052 for all costs for work associated in the statement of work (Attachment 11). Pricing will be broken out by Division (as defined by the Construction Specifications Institute) for the evaluation project. The Government reserves the right to request data other than certified cost or pricing data.

L-3.3.3 Coefficient Worksheet. There is no guaranteed number of projects that will be awarded on this contract. For the purpose of evaluation only, an estimated 30 projects will be used, with an estimated aggregate total of $9.99M in the total evaluated price calculation; the estimated number of projects and total has been provided for evaluation purposes only and is not a guarantee or indication of the number of projects the government intends to award. A SABER Coefficient Worksheet has been provided with this solicitation (Attachment 13); offerors shall complete and submit this worksheet by filling in green cells: H16 Proposed Coefficient, N16 Proposed SABER Fee (Per Project), F19 Proposed Seed Project Price w/ Coefficient applied.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA487725R0001

SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION BASE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS (SABER)

INDEFINITE-DELIVERY INDEFINITE-QUANTITY (IDIQ)

FA487725R0001 – SECTION M

M-1 GENERAL INFORMATION

M-1.1 Basis for Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

15.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented. In this procurement, the Government will determine best value based on an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) with a potential price tradeoff between the two highest technically rated offers should the conditions of paragraph M-2.1.5 be met. Price will be evaluated during this source selection for evaluation purposes and fairness and reasonableness. Additionally, prices will be evaluated at the individual task order level for future orders against the contract.

M-1.1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract to a single 8(a) business who is validated as one of the two the highest technically rated offerors, has a fair and reasonable evaluated price, and is also determined responsible IAW FAR Part 9.

M-1.1.2 IDIQ Ceiling. The overall ceiling of the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity, (IDIQ) contract is estimated at $9.99M for a single three (3) year base ordering period, and two (2) additional one (1) year option years. The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount.

Funding will be determined at the individual task order level.

M-1.1.3 Minimum Quantity Task Order. An initial task order will be awarded to the IDIQ contractor for the designated seed project. The task order minimum will be funded at the awardee’s SABER retention fee amount. The dollar value is set at the time of award and will satisfy the minimum quantity requirement. There is no guarantee of any task order beyond the minimum SABER retention fee amount.

M-1.2 Proposal Compliance and Offeror Responsibility

M-1.2.1 Proposal Substantiation. Unsubstantiated or misleading claims for any Prior Technical Experience evaluation element could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero points.

M-1.2.2 Proposal Compliance. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements as stated in section L paragraph L-1.1, such as terms and conditions, submission requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Government determining the Offeror to be non-responsive and ineligible for award.

The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the Offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of proposal compliance.

M-1.2.3 Offeror Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any section of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

M-2.1 Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate quality (FAR 15.304(c)(2)) in this source selection through consideration of the Offeror’s Prior Technical Experience (PTE) as a factor. A multi-step process will be used to determine which Offeror’s proposal is responsive and qualified to receive the award.

M-2.1.1 Step One - HTRO Self Score Sequence Orientation. The HTRO methodology requires the Offeror to submit a self-rated score based on the objective criteria described in Section L. This score will be referred to as a Proposal Self Score (PSS). The Government will arrange the provided proposals in order starting with the highest rated PSS to the lowest.

M-2.1.2 Step Two – Responsiveness. Starting with the highest rated PSS, the Government will review the entire proposal for compliance with Section L. Any work samples submitted that do not meet the criteria of Section L-3.2.1 though L-3.2.5 will either be eliminated entirely or have non-compliant pages removed prior to further evaluation.

If a proposal is considered non-responsive and eliminated, it will be removed from consideration and the process will start over with the next highest PSS Proposal.

M-2.1.3 Step Three – HTRO Verification. Assessing technical excellence is inherent to the HTRO methodology. Once the Government has determined the proposal to be responsive and is identified as possessing the highest rated PSS, the Government will evaluate the Offeror's self-rated technical proposal by validating the proposed Self-Scoring Worksheet. The Government will validate the Offeror's self-rated scores using the work samples provided. If the Government is unable to find the substantiating information within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc., the Government will not search further for the substantiating information. If the Government is unable to validate that Offeror's self-rated score based on the work samples, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror's self-rated score, potentially down to zero points. The Government will only adjust the Offeror's self-rated score downward, not upward. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government and are based upon the substantiation of the self-rated score provided by the Offeror.

If the validation process results in no downward adjustment of points the proposal will be assigned a Final Verified Score (FVS) matching its PSS.

If there is a downward adjustment in scoring the verified score for the proposal will reflect the reduction of points and it will be recorded as the proposal’s FVS.

If the downward adjustment results in the proposal’s FVS falling lower than the next highest proposal’s PSS, the source selection team will proceed to evaluate the next highest PSS.

M-2.1.4 Step Four – Technical Price Evaluation – Pass/Fail Once the proposal with the highest FVS is identified and has a higher score than the next highest PSS, the Government will evaluate the contractor's price proposal on the seed project using the AF3052 to determine the price technically acceptable as a pass/fail criteria using the technique established in FAR 15.404-1(e).

If the price of the proposal is determined technically unacceptable, the entire proposal will be removed from consideration and the process will continue with the proposal with the next highest FVS.

M-2.1.5 Step Five – 2HTRO Verification. After a proposal is identified as having the highest FVS and has a technically acceptable price determination, the Government will begin the process over with the next highest PSS proposal so long as the proposal with the next highest PSS falls within a 20% difference of the highest FVS proposal with a technically acceptable price.

If there are downward adjustments to the next highest PSS proposal that result in the FVS score falling outside of the 20% difference of the highest FVS proposal, the process will repeat with the next highest PSS proposal within the 20% difference from the highest FVS until the two highest FVS scores with technically acceptable prices are identified.

If no additional proposal’s FVS falls within the 20% difference of the highest FVS the evaluation ends, and award will be made to the vendor with the highest verified score with a technically acceptable price.

M-2.1.6 Step Six – 2HTRO Total Evaluated Price trade off. Only the 2 highest FVS proposals will be identified for award consideration, even if other proposals have been identified to possess an FVS within 20% of the highest FVS proposal.

The Government shall award to whichever of the 2 highest FVS proposals has the lowest Total evaluated price calculated on the SABER Coefficient Worksheet (Attachment 13).

M-2.1.7 Price Fair and Reasonableness. The Government must determine the awardee’s TEP fair and reasonable prior to the award of the contract. The Government will use methods outlined in FAR 15.404- 1 for a price fair and reasonable determination. Should a selected proposal fail to be determined fair and reasonable, the proposal will be removed from consideration and the proposal evaluation will continue, utilizing the evaluation methodology in section M-1 and M-2.

M-3 Point Accumulation

The maximum number of points a contractor can receive is 123,750.

The maximum number of points in Volume 1- Business Section is 0.

The maximum number of points in Volume 2- Relevant Experience is 111,750.

The maximum number of points in Volume 3- Systems, Certifications, and Clearances is 12,000.