FA488719RA003_Section_M.pdf

52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Jan 1999)

This provision is incorporated by reference with the following addenda to paragraphs

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 25 May 2018. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Evaluation

After initial screening of each offeror’s proposal for conformance to the solicitation requirements, technical proposal, price proposals, and assessment of each offeror’s past performance, if the lowest reasonably priced technically acceptable offer is determined responsible IAW FAR 9.1, and has acceptable past performance, award may be made to that offeror without entering into discussions as this represents the best value to the government.

c. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) and Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field (GBAFAF).

d. Discussions

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. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. If the Government deems discussions are required, all offerors within the competitive range will be notified in writing.

e. 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 factors or sub factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ 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.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Process:

Offers shall be ranked according to total evaluated price (TEP), including all option prices. For efficiency purposes, the Government will evaluate a minimum of the three (3) lowest priced offerors on technical and past performance acceptability. Should the lowest priced offerors not receive an acceptable technical and past performance rating; the process will continue in order of price until at least three offerors with an acceptable technical and past performance rating are identified. If two or less offers are received, the Government may proceed with evaluating only those proposals. Providing the lowest reasonably priced offer is determined to be technically acceptable with acceptable past performance, the Government may deem that offer to represent overall best value to the Government and selected for award without discussions--the process ends. Notwithstanding, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the contracting officer to be necessary.

b. Evaluation Factors and Sub factors

The following evaluation factors and sub factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or sub factors.

Factor 1: Technical Sub factor 1: Technical Aspects Sub factor 2: Personnel Requirements Sub factor 3: Quality Control Program

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

c. Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each sub factor. Any sub factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub factors:

Sub factor 1: Technical Aspects

a. Description: Provide all civil engineering services to include general maintenance, water and sewer systems, electrical, power production, barrier maintenance, structures, plumbing, pavements and grounds, supply, HVAC, entomology, HAZMAT, mechanical and production control operations.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates that they have the capability to complete all tasks listed in sections I-6 through I-6.35 of the

PWS.

b. Description: The Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to provide Fire and Emergency

Services (FES), management and administration services, training services, prevention and education services, fire and rescue emergency response services, Hazardous Material (HazMat) mitigation services, ambulance and pre-hospital emergency medical services, emergency management services to include Emergency Communications Center, paramedics, maintenance of fire extinguishers, intervention at other emergency situations (such as natural or manmade disasters that threaten life, property or the environment), and associated tasks for any attached or related properties under the control of GBAFAF and BMGR.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates the knowledge and ability to complete all tasks, equipment proposed for each section signifying an understanding of contract requirements listed in sections I-7 through I-

7.27 of the PWS.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

c. Description: Manage security forces to accomplish base patrol, range patrol, entry control, information management, investigations, anti-terrorism, training, evaluations, resource protection, physical security and contingency response.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates the capability to perform all security related requirements, equipment proposed for each section signifying an understanding of contract requirements of the PWS as listed in sections I.8 through I.8.39.

d. Description: List of vehicles, uniforms IAW the PWS and equipment proposed for each section signifying an understanding of contract requirements.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror provides a plan outlining all vehicles, uniforms, and equipment required in the PWS sections I. 1.0, 3.0, 3.1, 5.3.5, 5.4.1.1-5.4.2.4, 5.5, 5.5.2, 5.5.2.11, 6.1, 7.11, 7.12, 7.17, 7.24, 7.26, 8.1-8.7, 8.13.6, 8.22-8.27.1, 8.32, 8.33, 9.1, 9.9-9.9.7.1, 9.10.1-9.10.10, 9.10.1.3, 9.10.15, 10.1-10.2.2, 10.5, 10.6, 10.9, 10.12, 10.22-10.27, Fig 10.2, Fig 10.3, Fig 10.6, 11.1- 11.7, 12.1-12.1.1, 13, 14, 15.1, 15.1.2-15.1.3, 15.3-15.3.2, 15.4.4-15.4.5, 15.5, 15.6- 15.6.7.5, 15.7-15.7.21, 16-16-3.3.1, 17.9.1.2-17.9.1.6, All of Section 18, All of Section 19, All of Section III, All of Section IV, Section V to 1.14,

e. Description: Air traffic control, Transient alert, weather observers and airfield management services.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror provides a plan that covers all requirements listed in the PWS sections I.5 through I.5.7.3 and I.11 through I.11.25.2.

f. Description: Range maintenance on a 1.05 million acre complex with seven geographically separated ranges and 1600 targets.

covers all requirements listed in the PWS sections I.15 through I.15.8.6.19.

g. Description: Biological and environmental services pertaining to natural resource research and management.

covers all requirements listed in the PWS sections I.16 through I.16.3.3.2.7.

h. Description: Range residue removal demilitarization handling and removal.

covers all requirements listed in the PWS Sections I.20 through I.20.23 – 1.0, All of Section 18, all of section 20, Section V to 1.14.

Sub factor 2: Personnel Requirements

a. Description: Hiring and retaining personnel in sufficient numbers for each section experienced in operating and maintaining real property on a large, multiple site, multiple facilities and complex installation.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability and knowledge required to meet the hiring and retaining of personnel as outlined in the PWS. 1.0, 3.0, 3.1-3.2.2, 5.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.4-5.4.2.4, 5.5.6, 5.8.2, 6.1, 6.5, 6.8, 6.10.8, 6.12, 7.2, 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.7.2, 7.11, 8.1-8.7, 8.17, 9.3, 9.8.11-14, 9.9- 9.9.7.1, 10.1-10.2.2, 11.1-11.7, 12.1-12.1.1, 13, 14, 15.2, 16, 17, All of Section 18, All of Section 19, All of Section III, Section IV to 1.14, Section V.4,

b. Description: Manage a comprehensive training program that details how the various skill levels and certification requirements identified in the PWS will be met.

covers the training program requirements as listed in the PWS. 1.0, 3.0, 5.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.4-5.4.2.4, 5.5.6, 5.5.7, 5.5.15, 6.4, 6.8, 6.10.8, 6.12, 6.20, 6.21.2, 6.21.3, 6.31.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.4.1-7.6, 7.7.2, 7.14, 8.1-8.7, 8.17, 8.22-8.27.1, 9.4, 9.9-9.9.7.1, 9.10.1, 11.24.4, 12.1-12.1.1, 13, 14, 15.2, 15.4.2, 17.2, All of Section 18, All of Section IV, Section V to 1.14, ,

c. Description: Hiring and retaining personnel with proven experience in their field and fully certified in their trade.

the ability and knowledge required to meet the hiring and retaining of personnel as outlined in the PWS. 1.0, 3.0, 3.1-3.2.2, 5.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.4-5.4.2.4, 5.5.6, 5.8.2, 6.5, 6.8, 6.10.8, 6.12, 6.20, 6.21.2, 6.21.3, 6.31.2, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 - 7.6, 7.7.2, 7.11, 8.1-8.7, 8.17, 9.3, 9.4, 9.8.11-14, 10.1-10.2.2, 12.1-12.1.1, 13, 14,, 15.2, 16.3.3.1.2 - 16.3.3.2.7, 17.9.1.2, All of Section 18, Section IV to 1.14, ,

d. Description: Hiring and retaining managers with a proven capability to manage BOS contracts.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability and knowledge required to meet the hiring and retaining of personnel as outlined in the PWS. 1.0, 3.0, 3.1-3.2.2, 5.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.4-5.4.2.4, 5.5.6, 6.1, 7.2, 8.1-8.7, 9.3, 11.1-11.7, 12.1-12.1.1, 13, 14, 15.2, 16, 17.1, All of Section 18, All of Section 19, Section IV to 1.14, Sub factor 3: Quality Control Program

a. Description: Establish and maintain a complete Quality Control Plan (QCP) to ensure the requirements of the contract are provided.

the ability to establish and maintain a QCP as listed is section I.18 of the PWS.

d. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offeror’s must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. 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 available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

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. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past __5__ years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts involve essentially the same, similar, or greater scope, magnitude, and complexities of the effort this solicitation requires. The scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity will be determined by the similarity to the offeror’s experience in the functional areas required to operate a Base Operations Support (BOS) contract. Relevant contracts are previous BOS or Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) contracts where the contractor engaged in providing operating staff to perform a combination of support services for their client in client provided facilities. Relevancy will be assigned a rating of “relevant” or “not relevant” based on an offeror’s present/past performance demonstrated ability to meet the minimum requirement acceptability standards described in the RFP. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information report and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

e. Price Factor

1. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award. The government will evaluate the price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal IAW FAR 15.404.

2. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. For award purposes, the Government will evaluate both individual prices and the total evaluated price (TEP) of the proposal. The TEP is the sum of the extended unit prices for all items listed in Section B -Bid Schedule except as described in para e.5. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all option periods will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

The Government may determine an offer unacceptable if the proposed prices are materially unbalanced. The offeror shall submit completed pricing data for all items listed in the Bid Schedule; therefore, substitutions are not acceptable for this evaluation.

5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): Each Offeror’s TEP will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for award decision purposes. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of CLINs X001 - X008, X011 for the base period and all option periods, to include Transition CLIN 0015.

The TEP will not include CLINs X009, X010, X014 (Termination Fee), and CLINs X012 (Reimbursable Rates).