Attachment 6 - Section M Evaluation Criteria - 21Jan21.pdf

Attachment 6 - FA488721R0003

Section M

Revised 21 Jan 2021

Note: All changes indicated in red text.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD.

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the SABER contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against predetermined measures of merit related to the Government's requirement defined herein.

M.1.0 Basis for Contract Award.

This is a competitive, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) with Technical Acceptability best value source selection, for HUBZone companies that will be conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at, https://acquisition.gov/.

For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price. Past Performance is significantly more important than 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 technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. While the Government evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. In order to be considered for award, the Offeror must be determined responsible (as described in FAR 9.104), meet all solicitation requirements (including terms and conditions), be technically acceptable, be assessed a past performance confidence rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial”, and have a price that is complete, balanced, fair and reasonable.

M.2.0. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation.

M.3.0. Evaluation Process

M.3.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations

M.3.1.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Bonding Capacity

Subfactor 2: Luke AFB Seed Project

Subfactor 3: Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance (Recent & Relevant)

Factor 3: Price Coefficients (Complete, Reasonable, & Balanced)

M.3.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

The Technical Factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All Subfactors within Technical are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price. Past performance, when combined with technical factor(s), is significantly more important than price; however, price contributes to the selection decision.

M.3.2. Evaluation Steps.

The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation process steps:

Step 1 – Proposal Adequacy: The Government will review proposals for completeness (adhering to all information/instructions). If an Offeror fails to comply with instructions in Section L -

Instructions, Condition, and Notices to Offeror, the Offeror’s proposal may be deemed incomplete and will receive no further consideration and be eliminated from the competition. The Government will only evaluate proposals deemed complete.

Step 2 – Evaluate Factor 1, Technical, for Technical Acceptability: The Government will evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability. A rating of “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable” will be assigned for each subfactor. All subfactors must be deemed “Acceptable” for Factor 1 to be deemed “Acceptable”. To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive an

“Acceptable” rating for Factor 1. Only proposals determined “Acceptable” on Factor 1 will proceed to be evaluated for Factor 2, Past Performance. In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is deemed technically unacceptable for Factor 1, it will be eliminated and past performance will not be evaluated. Thus the proposal will be eliminated from competition.

Step 3 – Evaluate Factor 2, Past Performance: The Government will evaluate all technically

“Acceptable” Offeror’s past performance submissions and will be evaluated and assigned an

Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), past performance information is one indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating for each Offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. Next, each recent and relevant past performance submission will receive a quality rating. As a result of recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the individual contracts evaluated an overall Integrated Past Performance

Confidence Assessment rating will be assigned to the Past Performance Factor. Only Offeror’s with a past performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence” or

“Substantial Confidence” will move on to Step 4 to be evaluated under Factor 3, Price. No further consideration will be given for proposals that receive a confidence rating below “Satisfactory”.

Step 4 – Evaluate Factor 3, Price (Coefficients): Proposals found technically acceptable and that have received a Substantial, Satisfactory or Unknown/Neutral Integrated Past Performance Rating will then be reviewed for completeness, balance, and fair and reasonable pricing IAW 15.404-

1(b)(2)(i), based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of the coefficients. Although the Price Factor is considered less important than the combined non-cost factors, it will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

Step 5 – Categorize: All proposals eligible for evaluation after Step 4, will be placed into groups according to their Integrated Past Performance Rating (i.e. Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory

Confidence, etc.) and ranked in order from least to highest Total Evaluated Price.

Step 6 - Source Selection Team Decision: At this point, the offers will be evaluated by the

Source Selection Team, which will make a comprehensive determination of the Offeror that is most advantageous to the Government. The Government reserves the right to trade up for an

Offeror with a higher TEP that has been assigned a higher Integrated Performance Confidence

Assessment Rating. The Source Selection Authority will conduct an independent, integrated, comparative assessment to determine which Offerors meet the Government requirements of technical acceptability, provide the greatest confidence of past performance, and have a total evaluated price that represents the best value to the Government.

Step 7 - Source Selection Authority's Decision for IDIQ Contract: Once the best value Offeror is determined, the Offeror will be evaluated for responsibility in accordance with FAR in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1 and, if found responsible, will be eligible for the SABER IDIQ award. The Government will award one (1) IDIQ basic contract and will issue a task order to meet the minimum guarantee of the contract.

M.3.3. Competitive Range.

The Government reserves the right to limit, for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). If the contracting officer decides that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful Offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503.

M.3.4. Discussions.

a. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions and make an award based on initial proposals; as such, Offerors are advised to submit sufficient information and in the format specified. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer.

b. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for revisions.

c. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, a competitive range will be determined and the Offeror’s 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offer (for example: the relevance of past/present performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. If, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes their proposal such that the price is no longer fair and reasonable or sufficient to keep them among the most highly rated Offerors or other factor inputs change their ranking among other Offerors, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

M.3.5. Final Proposal Revisions.

If discussions are conducted, FPRs will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, FPRs will not be required.

Offerors are advised that unsupported FPRs may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.

M.3.6. Correction Potential of Proposal.

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.

M.4.0. EVALUATION FACTORS.

M.4.1. Factor 1 – Technical

a. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical proposal, based on the subfactors listed below, to determine if the Offeror’s technical proposal demonstrates a sound approach and a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the SABER requirements and solicitation. All

Subfactors within the Technical Factor are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an

“Acceptable/Unacceptable” Basis, as defined in Table 4.1. below.

b. Measure of Merit: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror's proposal provides a technical approach that meets the Government's minimum capability requirements for all

Technical Subfactors. All subfactors must receive an Acceptable rating for Factor 1, Technical to be deemed Acceptable. An offer with an Unacceptable rating in one or more subfactors will be given an overall rating of Unacceptable for Factor 1 - Technical and will not be eligible for award.

At a minimum, the Offeror shall provide sufficient information to meet the measure of merit.

TABLE 4.1. – Measure of Merit - Technical Ratings – FACTOR 1 Technical

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

c. Evaluators shall assign a rating of ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE based on the minimum requirements stated below for each Subfactor.

M.4.1.1. Technical Subfactor 1: Bonding. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s bonding capacity assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in the Measure of Merit Table

4.1.1 below. Provide proof of bonding capacity in the form of a surety letter, which guarantees the

Offeror is eligible to be bonded for a minimum of $3,000,000 for a single project and $7,000,000 aggregate. The document must include the surety company’s name, address, telephone number, and points of contact. The surety must be listed in the Department of Treasury Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and

Acceptable Reinsuring Companies”. The project and aggregate bonding amounts shall not exceed the surety’s underwriting limit certified by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

TABLE 4.1.1. – Measure of Merit - Technical Ratings – SUBFACTOR 1 – BONDING

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets all of the following requirements of the solicitation:

1. Minimum bonding capacity of $3M project.

2. Minimum bonding capacity of $7M aggregate.

3. Bonding company certified on Department of Treasury Circular 570.

4. Bonding amounts do not exceed surety’s underwriting limit.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet one or more of the bonding requirements.

M.4.1.2. Technical Subfactor 2: Luke Demonstration/Seed Project. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to appropriately plan for the execution of a demonstration/seed project and assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in the Measure of Merit Table

4.1.2. below. To be determined acceptable, a proposal must contain all the elements required by the Luke Seed Project and meet the following minimum standards.

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach contained within their proposal. The

Offeror shall demonstrate a complete and thorough understanding of the seed project SOW by utilizing accurate project phasing, describing an effective and sound process for interfacing with the government team throughout the project life cycle and demonstrating an adequate set of processes and procedures detailing how the Offeror will execute all work diligently without any unnecessary or unauthorized delays, breaks or deviations from the Construction Work Schedule

(AF Form 3064) and/or subsequent modifications. In addition, necessary testing, inspections, outages and required permits shall be fully described to meet SABER SOW procedures. Offeror shall also describe how to handle changes in scope related to unforeseen conditions, government requested changes and any other potential change conditions. For all work areas including interior and exterior, describe the means of access for equipment, labor, and materials. Describe the unique challenges of this project as you understand them and how the Offeror will overcome the risks associated with these challenges, including the Offeror’s approach to construction phasing (if any), sequencing and working in an occupied facility. Identify any work dependencies and how the Offeror will address those dependencies. Include a description of procedures, processes and methods for tracking the progress of the project, adhering to the approved Contract Progress Schedule (AF form 3064 and Gantt chart), and interfacing with the

Government and contractor team from beginning to end. This shall include percentage of work self-performed per Section M paragraph M.4.1.3.c. [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP

Section L paragraph L.3.2.2.a]

b. Construction Work Schedule (CWS) (AF Form 3064): The CWS will be evaluated on the

Offeror’s ability to develop a GANTT chart that lays out an appropriate critical path and set of milestones that accurately captures the preparatory and major line items required to perform the project, and effectively reflects an accurate overall period of performance required to complete the task order. Per paragraph 14.4.1.8 of the SABER SOW, as a minimum, the CWS milestones shall accurately reflect project phasing, construction/phase/multiple facility start date(s), utility outages, major equipment deliveries and installations, tests, critical inspection points (i.e., wall inspections prior to drywall installation, above-ceiling inspections, etc.) proposed Beneficial Occupancy and

Final Inspection date(s) and equipment training. In addition to the Gantt chart, the Offeror shall submit an AF Form 3064 that clearly shows progress throughout the project broken out between

CSI MasterFormat divisions and monthly progress periods for billing purposes.

[Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP Section L paragraphs L.3.2.2.b]

c. The Offeror will be evaluated on the completeness of the Schedule of Material Submittals (AF

Form 66) reflecting an accurate accounting of all proposed materials and required contract documents to execute the seed project. AF Form 66 attachment is an example that the Offeror can use to submit their schedule of materials. Offeror’s will be required to add, edit, or adjust based on the specifics of the project requirements. Submittal register shall reflect submission dates needed to meet project timelines shown in the schedules provided and follow all government review timelines as described in the SABER SOW. [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP Section L paragraphs L.3.2.2.c]

TABLE 4.1.2. – Measure of Merit - Technical Ratings – SUBFACTOR 2 – LUKE

DEMONSTRATION/SEED PROJECT

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets all of the following requirements of the solicitation:

1. Project Approach – Offeror’s approach contains accurate project phasing, effective and a sound process for interfacing with the government team throughout the project life cycle, and adequate set of processes and procedures detailing how the Offeror will execute all work diligently without any unnecessary or unauthorized delays, breaks or deviations from the

Construction Work Schedule (AF Form 3064) and Gantt chart and/or subsequent modifications.

2. Construction Work Schedule and (AF Form 3064) and Gantt chart – Offeror’s schedule lays out an appropriate critical path and set of milestones that accurately captures the preparatory and major line items required to perform the project, and effectively reflects an accurate overall period of performance required to complete the task order as stated in paragraph b. above.

3. Schedule of Material Submittals (AF Form 66) – Offeror’s schedule of material submittals reflects an accurate accounting of all proposed materials and required contract documents to execute the seed project.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet one or more of the Demonstration/Seed Project requirements.

M.4.1.3. Technical Subfactor 3, Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s capability to appropriately manage and employ the necessary resources to execute the contract and all task orders and assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in the

Measure of Merit Table 4.1.3. below. To be determined acceptable, a proposal must contain all the elements required by the subfactor and meet the following minimum standards. Offeror’s

Management Approach submission should include three (3) separate elements: Management Plan, Key Personnel Resumes, and a Staffing Plan.

a. Management Plan:

(1) The proposed Management Plan shall describe an effective approach that effectively minimizes technical, cost, and schedule risks during the course of simultaneously managing requirements from design through construction to completion for four (4) geographically separated locations (Luke AFB, 161st ANG Sky Harbor IAP, Gila Bend, and Ft Tuthill) under short, time-critical deadlines. Offerors shall describe, in detail, procedures that define their ability to handle multiple projects in different acquisition phases, from submitting additional RFP’s, design of projects, active construction, to closure of completed projects. In describing the management approach, Offerors shall detail how they will inspect and measure progress, detect and resolve problems and interface and partner with government project managers, contracting officials, inspectors, users and subcontractors. Note: A formal quality control plan is not required with the proposal submission.

(2) Offerors shall describe their approach to assure the appropriate levels of Management, (all levels of management – Project Manager, Superintendent, and Quality Control

Manager), with the required commensurate experience and authority, are recruited, hired, trained and retained to readily execute tasks specified within the SABER SOW throughout the duration of the contract. In addition, Offerors shall describe their approach for maintaining currency of any required certifications and/or specialized training during short term absences (leave, sick leave, and so on) and vacancies. Offerors shall describe their capabilities to include drafting, cost estimating, and engineering as needed per TO. [This corresponds to Section L, paragraph L.3.2.3.a. (2)]

b. Key Personnel Resumes: Provide Resumes and Resume Template (Attachment 28) for the key personnel that would occupy the positions of Project Manager, Superintendent, and Quality

Control Manager listed in Section L, Table L.2.1.1 that would be utilized in performance under a resultant contract. The personnel qualifications listed are established and in effect for the life of the contract.

c. Staffing Plan: The proposed Staffing Plan shall demonstrate Offerors can rapidly obtain additional subcontractor support and augment existing in-house and key personnel to effectively execute and manage multi-discipline task orders (maintaining high quality workmanship and minimizing cost, schedule and technical risks) in a highly compressed time frame while also executing a 20% - 30% surge workload at any time during fiscal year. Offerors shall identify percentage of work self-performed both for the duration of the contract and for the Seed Project being proposed. For the seed project, Offerors shall identify what trades are being self-performed and should clearly show percentage in relation to entire project. This explanation should include number of skilled laborers that would be assigned to this project and what trades they are skilled

in. Percentages for trades should match what is provided on the Offeror’s AF Form 3064. For example, if electrical work accounted for 30% of the project according to the proposed 3064, the contractor shall explain that two electrical foreman and four electrical journeyman shall be assigned to complete all electrical work on the project. This would account for the contractor completing 30% of the project with ‘in-house’ capability. This shall be clearly explained within the proposal for the seed project. [This corresponds to Section L, paragraph L.3.2.2.b. and

L.3.2.3.c.]

TABLE 4.1.3. – Measure of Merit - Technical Ratings – SUBFACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets all of the following requirements of the solicitation.

1. Management Approach:

(a) Offerors shall describe their management approach to minimize technical, cost, and schedule risks to execute projects within the minimum requirements of the SABER SOW given the need to simultaneously manage requirements from design through construction to completion for four (4) geographically separated locations.

(b) Offerors shall describe their approach to assure the appropriate levels of Management, (all levels of management – Project Manager, Superintendent, and Quality Control

Manager), with the required commensurate experience and authority, are recruited, hired, trained and retained to readily execute tasks specified within the SABER SOW throughout the duration of the contract.. In addition, Offerors shall describe their approach for maintaining currency of any required certifications and/or specialized training. Lastly, Offerors shall describe their capabilities to include drafting, cost estimating, and engineering as needed per TO (Reference Section L Paragraph L.3.2.3.a.(1) and (2).

2. Key Personnel Resume:

Provide resumes for the key personnel that would occupy the positions listed in Section L, Table L.2.1.1 that would be utilized in performance under a resultant contract. The established minimum qualifications are listed in the SABER SOW, Attachment 1 paragraph 5 and will remain in effect for the duration of the resultant contract. Submit

Attachment 28 Resume Template along with resume for all key personnel as part of

Volume I.

Project Manager (CPM): The CPM should have a minimum of 5 years previous experience as primary manager of a Government contract or general contracting firm engaged in similar multiple discipline commercial construction projects. In addition the

CPM must be experienced with managing multiple subcontractors.

Project Superintendent (CPS): The CPS should have a minimum of 5 years previous experience as a project superintendent (exclusive of time employed as a tradesman or working foreman) for a general contracting firm overseeing one or more multi-discipline commercial construction projects.

Quality Control Manager/ Foreman (QCM): The QCM shall be someone other than the Project Manager or Superintendent. QCM shall have a minimum of 5 years’ experience in Quality Control Management of multidiscipline construction projects.

3. Staffing Plan: Offerors shall provide a Staffing Plan that describes the Offeror's process for executing and managing a large number of multi-discipline task orders in a highly compressed time frame (i.e. surges in workload) to include obtaining additional subcontractor support and augmenting existing in-house project management and supervision for construction. In writing the plan, anticipate a surge of 20 - 30% over and above the historical workload noted in paragraph L.3.2.3.a.(1) during the 4th quarter of the fiscal year (July - September). Offerors shall identify percentage of work self-performed both for the duration of the contract and for the Seed Project being proposed in accordance with paragraph M4.1.3.c . above. In addition, Offerors shall describe approach for maintaining currency of any required certifications and/or specialized training during short term absences and vacancies.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet one or more of the Seed Project requirements.

M.4.2. Factor 2 – Present/Past Performance.

a. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting 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, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS) or other databases; interviews with Project Managers, Contracting Officers and

Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

b. The Government will evaluate past performance submissions for recency, relevancy, and quality.

Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. Next, each recent and relevant past performance submission will be assessed for quality. As a result of recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the individual contracts evaluated an overall Past Performance Evaluation Rating will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. Only Offerors with a Past Performance rating of

“Satisfactory” or “Substantial” will be considered eligible for award. Any proposals receiving a past performance evaluation rating below “Satisfactory” for Factor 2 will not be eligible for award.

c. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror or joint venture member has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

d. Offeror’s Teaming Partners and/or Joint Venture Members: Newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the

Offeror/Teaming Partner/Joint Venture member. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

e. The Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly identifies and supports recency, relevancy, and quality based on the following definitions:

M.4.2.1. Recency.

a. An evaluation of the present/past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recency is defined as active contract performance during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. Ongoing projects may be used as long as they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or Non-

Federal Government equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage). If a contract reference is determined recent (had some or all active performance in the three (3) years preceding the solicitation issuance date), and had active performance prior to the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, the Government may evaluate the Offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

b. A recency determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining recency for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror/Teaming Partner/Joint Venture member whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) (Attachment 10) forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of recency of past performance. The Government will use the below table of recency ratings when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table M.4.2.1. PAST PERFORMANCE RECENCY RATING METHOD

Rating Definition

RECENT

Present/Past Performance effort is ongoing with 80% or more completion or has been completed during the past three years.

NOT RECENT

Present/Past Performance effort is not ongoing with 80% or more completion or has not been completed during the past three years.

M.4.2.2. Relevancy.

a. The Government will conduct an in depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely related the products provided/services performed under those contracts are to the Technical requirements and Price, including their relative order of importance, to this acquisition. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for Technical similarity and relative price magnitude (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

b. Specifically, relevant is defined as contracts of similar size, scope, and magnitude, involving the type of construction and work elements described in the solicitation and attached SABER SOW and

Specifications. Relevant past performance project work elements include projects involving

Sustainment, Repair, Modernization (SRM), renovation, modernization, alteration and repair, additions and upgrades, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and other major trades. Relevant contracts include work performed concurrently on a military installation or Federal Government facility or utility system will be considered more relevant. Relevant

Present/Past project(s) cost should be in the range of $200,000 - $5,000,000.

c. In addition, relevant contracts will include the involvement of at least 3 different disciplines (i.e.

HVAC, electrical, and Finishes related work). Relevant projects will also include a portion of the work being self-performed for at least one specific trade (i.e. electrical work). Relevant projects will clearly state how much of the project was performed by employees of the Offeror, Teaming Partners, and/or Joint Venture Members to demonstrate ability to self-perform. Higher relevancy will be given to projects that clearly demonstrate one or more trades performed by the Offeror’s, Teaming

Partner’s, and/or Joint Venture Member’s employees. Specifically, a rating of ‘relevant’ would be given to the Offeror, Teaming Partner, and/or Joint Venture Member that performs one trade in-house, excluding other factors. A ‘Very Relevant’ rating would be given to a company that performs more than one trade by employees of the Offeror, Teaming Partners, and/or Joint Venture Members, excluding other factors. Lastly, relevant projects will have been managed concurrently with other similar projects. Proposals will clearly and concisely address each of the required aspects of a relevant project.

d. Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts

(including Federal, State, local government and commercial) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the SABER SOW.

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with Section

M. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e. aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the solicitation/specification).

e. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture and teaming partner(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture, or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) (Attachment 10) forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the below table of relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table M.4.2.2. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

Rating Definition

VERY

RELEVANT

Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The past performance effort demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to manage at least four (4) concurrent contracts/task orders of similar scope and complexity on a military installation with project value between $500,000 and $2,000,000 that includes the involvement of at least three (3) different disciplines (i.e. HVAC, electrical, and Finishes related work) and includes at least two or more self-performed trades.

RELEVANT

Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The past performance effort demonstrates the

Offeror’s ability to manage at least three (3) concurrent contracts/task orders of similar scope and complexity on a military installation or at a Federal Government facility or utility with project value between $500,000 and $2,000,000, with the involvement of at least two (2) different disciplines (i.e. HVAC, electrical, and

Finishes related work) and includes at least one self-performed trade.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The past performance effort demonstrates the

Offeror’s ability to manage at least two (2) concurrent contracts/task orders of similar scope and complexity with project value between the $200,000 to less than $500,000 or between

$2,000,000 to less than $5,000,000, with the involvement of at least two (2) different disciplines (i.e. HVAC, electrical, and Finishes related work) and includes at least one self-performed trade.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/Past Performance effort involved little or no similarity in scope, magnitude or complexity when compared to the scope, magnitude and complexity required by the solicitation.

M.4.2.3. Quality Assessment.

For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services and the work performed will be assessed. The Government will consider information from Present and

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPPQs) and other Government resources on how well the Offeror performed on past contract citations (including general trends) and other contracts that are available from other Government sources. The Government will use the below table of quality ratings from

Attachment 11 – Present Past Performance Questionnaire (PPPQ) when assessing present/past performance on recent, relevant contracts and assign an overall rating to each.

Table M.4.2.3. PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATING METHOD

Rating/Code Definition

E

EXCEPTIONAL - The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

VG

VERY GOOD - The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

S

SATISFACTORY – The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or was satisfactory.

M

MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U

UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N/A NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a score or item is not applicable to the referenced contract.

M.4.2.4. Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the

Technical Subfactors and Price Factor, taking into consideration their relative order of importance as stated in paragraph M.4.1.2. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2), the government will consider currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. This evaluation of the recent contracts will result in Offerors receiving an

Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating, as defined in Table 4.2.4. below.

TABLE 4.2.4. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral

Confidence" rating.

M.4.3. Factor 3 – Price (Coefficients)

M.4.3.1. Coefficients and Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

a. The coefficient shall cover all items including all general conditions, profit, overhead, bonds, taxes, insurance, administrative/technical support and labor burden for the prime Contractor’s office staff and workforce. Bond costs shall be included in the coefficient and bonds will be required for each Task Order except for the minimum task order for the minimum guarantee.

b. The evaluation of price will be based primarily on each Offeror’s proposed coefficient(s). The

“Total Evaluated Price” will be based on a weighted composite coefficient rate using the following mathematical computation. The Offerors' proposed coefficients for each CLIN in the

"Bid Schedule" under Section B of this solicitation shall be multiplied by the percentages stated in the “Price Evaluation Worksheet (Section J, Attachment 4)” (Examples in Tables M.4.3.1.a, M.4.3.1.b, and M.4.3.1.c below consist of weighting based on historical and estimated workload). Note: In these tables, all prices will be rounded up to the nearest whole dollar when selecting a coefficient range.

Table M.4.3.1.a Luke AFB and 161st ANG COEFFICIENT STRUCTURE EXAMPLE

CLIN Item Description Weight Based on Historical

Data

Proposed

Coefficient

Weighted

Value

Result

0001AA- Base Ordering Period

1001AA - Option Year 1

2001AA- Option Year 2

Luke/161st ANG - Standard

Hours

74% 0.800 0.592

0001AB- Base Ordering Period

1001AB- Option Year 1

2001AB- Option Year 2

Luke/161st ANG - Non-

Standard Hours

6% 0.100 0.006

SUBTOTAL WEIGHTED COEFFICIENT RATE 80% 0.598

c. As noted in Section L, paragraph L.5.1.c, the combined total of line items results after multiplying the weighted percentage and will result in a weighted subtotal coefficient rate. The subtotal weighted coefficient rates will be transferred to the “Total Evaluated Price” tab in the attached Price Evaluation Worksheet (Section J, Attachment 4). There, the weighted coefficients shall be multiplied by the estimated aggregate total to get an evaluated total for each base. Then the evaluated total for each base will be added in the "Total Evaluated Price" tab for a TEP. Tables 6 and 7 are provided as an illustration of the weighted computation based on a fictitious set of coefficients and is only an example:

Table M.4.3.1.b - Gila Bend Weighted Coefficient Example

Data

Proposed

Coefficient

Weighted

Value

Result

0002AA- Base Ordering Period

1002AA - Option Year 1

2002AA- Option Year 2

Gila Bend - Standard Hours 10% 0.800 0.080

0002AB- Base Ordering Period

1002AB- Option Year 1

2002AB- Option Year 2

Gila Bend - Non-Standard

Hours

5% 0.100 0.005

SUBTOTAL WEIGHTED COEFFICIENT RATE 15% 0.085

Table M.4.3.1.c - Ft Tuthill AZ Weighted Coefficient Example

Data

Proposed

Coefficient

Weighted

Value

Result

0003AA- Base Ordering Period

1003AA - Option Year 1

2003AA- Option Year 2

Ft Tuthill - Standard Hours 4% 0.800 0.032

0003AB- Base Ordering Period

1003AB- Option Year 1

2003AB- Option Year 2

Ft Tuthill - Non-Standard

Hours

1% 0.100 0.006

SUBTOTAL WEIGHTED COEFFICIENT RATE 5% 0.038

Total 100%

M.4.3.2. TEP Evaluation.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal (TEP) for completeness, balance, and fair and reasonableness. Only proposals determined to be complete, balanced, and fair and reasonable will be eligible for award.

M.4.3.2.1. Completeness.

The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the priced elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto.

M.4.3.2.2. Unbalanced Pricing.

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether proposed prices are unbalanced pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(g). Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The

Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items, and option prices. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.4.3.2.3. Reasonableness.

IAW FAR 31.201-3 and 15.404-1, the Offeror’s TEP price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable. Pursuant to FAR 15.404-1, the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation (adequate price competition). Adequate price competition is defined in FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)-(ii).

b. Comparison of the proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the

Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items.

c. The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

d. The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

e. Expert technical advice should be obtained when analyzing similar items, or commercial items that are “of a type” or requiring minor modifications, to ascertain the magnitude of changes required and to assist in pricing the required changes

(1) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units)…