Attachment 9 - Section M A-E - 7-30-25.pdf

Attachment 9 – FA488725R0005 Section M

Updated 30 July 2025

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY AND WILL BE REMOVED AT TIME OF

AWARD.

Proposals will be evaluated to determine compliance with this solicitation and a final overall rating will be determined by consensus of the Government team. All completed packages submitted will be evaluated based on the criteria below.

M.1. GENERAL EVALUATION INFORMATION

M.1.1. Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive source selection for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) capable of providing multidisciplinary Architect-Engineer (A-E) services. The source selection will be conducted in accordance with the Brooks Act (40 U.S.C. 1101-1104) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 36.6 as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at, https://acquisition.gov/. Awards will be based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required services. Proposal evaluation will follow a two-phase process. In Phase 1, all interested firms submit Volume I – Technical, and Volume II

– Past Performance, which are evaluated based on professional qualifications, specialized experience, interviews, past performance, general geographical location, and capacity in accordance with FAR 36.602-1. The Government will then select the three most highly qualified firms based on these evaluations. In Phase 2, only the top three selected firms are invited to submit Volume III – Price Proposal, which will be analyzed separately. In the event the Government is unable to successfully negotiate fair and reasonable rates with one of the three firms, the Government will request Volume III – Price Proposal from the fourth most highly qualified firm. This process will continue until the Government is able to award three IDIQs. Because of the number of proposals anticipated, uniformity is essential to ensure fair and accurate evaluation. All proposals must comply with the submittal instructions in this solicitation. While the Government selection 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.

M.1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to issue an Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the three

(3) most highly qualified firms.

M.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA & ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The Government will use the evaluation criteria specified in FAR 36.602-1. In accordance with DFARS 236.602-1, these criteria are listed in relative order of importance below:

Table M.2. Evaluation Criteria & Order of Importance Factor Criteria Point Value Volume

Factor 1 Professional Qualifications 47 Points Volume I – Technical Factor 2 Specialized Experience 41 Points Volume I – Technical Factor 3 Interview 31 Points Volume I – Technical Factor 4 Past Performance 23 Points Volume II – Past Performance Factor 5 Location 17 Points Volume I – Technical Factor 6 Capacity 11 Points Volume I – Technical

M.3. RATING METHODOLOGY

An adjectival rating system combined with a point-based system will be used to assess offeror’s professional qualifications, specialized experience, interview, past performance, location, and capacity.

M.3.1. Rating Definitions for Factors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 Professional Qualifications (Factor 1), Specialized Experience (Factor 2), Interview (Factor 3), Location (Factor 5), and Capacity (Factor 6), will be assigned an adjectival rating, which determines the percentage of available points awarded for that factor:

Table M.3.1. Rating Definitions for Factors 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 Adjectival

Rating Definition Point Allocation (%)

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional understanding of requirements and contains multiple strengths with minimal to no weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

100% of available points

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of requirements and contains strengths that outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

75% of available points

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and contains strengths and weaknesses that generally balance each other.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

50% of available points

Marginal Proposal does not fully meet requirements, contains more weaknesses than strengths, and poses a high risk of unsuccessful performance.

25% of available points

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet requirements, contains deficiencies, or presents an unacceptable risk of unsuccessful performance.

0% of available points

M.3.2. Rating Definitions for Past Performance (Factor 4)

M.3.2.1. Recency 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 five (5) 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 five (5) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. Ongoing design projects may be used if 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 five (5) years preceding the solicitation issuance date) and had active performance prior to the five (5) 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.

A recency determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be based on the considerations outlined above, including joint venture partners. 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. If necessary, the information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the recency of past performance.

M.3.2.2. Relevancy The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely related the 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).

Specifically, relevant is defined as contracts of similar size, scope, and magnitude, involving the type of work elements described in the solicitation and attached A-E IDIQ SOW and Specifications. Relevancy is defined as projects involving any combination of Mechanical, Electrical, Fire Protection, Civil, Structural and Architectural Engineering services. Multidisciplinary projects performed on a military installation or Federal Government facility will be considered more relevant. Relevant past projects cost should be in the range of $75,000 - $2,500,000.

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 A-E IDIQ SOW. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made using these criteria and will apply to joint venture and teaming partners. 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance and will result in Offerors receiving a Past Performance Relevancy Rating, as defined in Table 3.2.2. below:

Table M.3.2.2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.3.2.3. Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. This evaluation will result in Offerors receiving an Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, as defined in Table 3.2.3. below:

Table M.3.2.3. Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Rating Definition Point Allocation (%)

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.

100% of available points

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.

75% of available points

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.

50% of available points

Limited Confidence

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

25% of available points

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.

0% of available points

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those projects deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. Past performance with a greater degree of recency or relevancy will have a greater impact on the Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts.

M.3.2.3.1. Neutral Confidence 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 recent and relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

M.3.3. Evaluation Factors and Scoring Breakdown

Table M.3.3. Evaluation Factors and Scoring Breakdown Evaluation Factor Maximum Points

Professional Qualifications 47 Specialized Experience 41 Interview 31 Past Performance 23 Location 17 Capacity 11 Total 170

M.3.4. Volume I – Technical The Technical Volume shall address professional qualifications, specialized experience, interview (document submission not required), location, and capacity.

M.3.4.1. Factor 1 – Professional Qualifications – Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services (SF 330, Part I, Sections D, E, G, and H): Firms will be evaluated on professional qualifications, competence, and experience of the proposed key personnel in providing services to accomplish tasks required under this contract, including participation in example projects in the SF330, Part I, Section G. Key personnel are individuals who will have major contract or project management responsibilities and/or will provide unusual or unique expertise. Specific disciplines and personnel that must be included in key personnel are:

- Project Manager

- Program Manager

- Civil Engineer

- Mechanical Engineer

- Electrical Engineer

All key personnel shall have a minimum of 5 years related project experience. In addition, all key personnel shall be a Registered Architect (RA) or Professional Engineer (PE). Firms must provide a copy of the license and issuing organization for such personnel. Copy of license shall not be counted as part of the page limitation.

Primary technical services shall be performed by individuals who are credentialed members of architectural, planning, science, and engineering professions. Generally, a credentialed professional (a) is licensed (e.g., registered professional engineer) to practice in a state and (b) commands the necessary expertise, in terms of knowledge and experience, to undertake the specified task to be identified at the task order level.

Note, at the Task Order level, individual state licensure credentials may be required. In-state licensure will be a requirement on Task Orders where knowledge of local or regional conditions is necessary or where compliance with state and local code is a design requirement. Such instances may include:

a. Design for any off-base facilities, including leased facilities, which also occasionally occurs for temporary facilities.

b. Design for work that does fall under state code or require local experience, such as electrical engineering work on privatized utilities. Privatized utilities are under state and local jurisdiction, even when on federal property, and must meet local code.

c. Geotechnical engineers, where knowledge of regional and local conditions is the largest qualifier for their line of work.

d. Structural engineers in regional hazard zones such as seismic, high snow loads, monsoon-prone regions, etc.

The Government will evaluate the firm’s organization chart of the proposed team under SF 330, Part I, Section D. The organization chart shall provide a description of the proposed team composition for the IDIQ, identifying scope to be conducted by each participating firm (e.g. prime A-E contractor, each participating JV partner, teaming partners, subcontractors, etc.). Evaluation of resumes under SF 330, Part I, Section E will also be conducted. Resumes for all proposed key personnel shall illustrate experience in the work proposed under this contract. The evaluation for each key personnel will focus on active professional registration, licensure, or certification; area of expertise and demonstrated experience; role expected to play in this contract; and the roles they performed in a maximum of five (5) completed projects that best illustrate the individual member’s experience level. Qualifications should reflect each individual’s skills and abilities to contribute to the successful completion of task orders issued on this contract. The evaluation will also focus on participation of key personnel in example projects in the SF 330, Part I, Section G. Resumes for key personnel are limited to one (1) page each. Any pages over this limit will not be considered. Experience completing projects for the Government is desirable but not required. The Government will also review SF 330, Part I, Section H during this phase of the evaluation to ensure a professional license is provided for each of the key personnel.

M.3.4.2. Factor 2 – Specialized Experience – Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required (SF 330, Part I, Section F): Firms will be evaluated on their demonstrated specialized recent/relevant experience and technical competence for services anticipated under this contract. Recency is defined as active contract performance during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Ongoing design projects may be used if 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).

Relevancy is defined as projects involving any combination of Mechanical, Electrical, Fire Protection, Civil, Structural and Architectural Engineering services. Multidisciplinary projects performed on a military installation or Federal Government facility will be considered more relevant. Relevant past projects cost should be in the range of $75,000 - $2,500,000. The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) projects demonstrating specialized experience of the proposed firm/team in provision of the services noted above.

All projects provided in the SF 330 must be completed by the actual office/branch/regional office/individual team member proposed to manage and perform work under this contract. Projects not meeting this requirement will be excluded from consideration in the evaluation. To enable verification, firms should include the SAM Unique Entity ID (UEI) number along with each firm name in the SF 330 Part 1, Section F, block 25, and include a contract number or project identification number in block 21.

Include an e-mail address and phone number for the point of contact in block 23(c). In block 24, include in the project description the contract period of performance, award contract value, and summary of the work performed that demonstrates relevance to specialized experience as outlined above. For projects performed as a subcontractor, specifically indicate the value of the work performed as a subcontractor or by those firms proposed for this contract, and identify the specific roles and responsibilities performed as a subcontractor or by those firms on the project rather than the work performed on the project as a whole.

If the project description does not clearly delineate the work performed by the entity/entities offering/teaming on this contract, the project could be eliminated from consideration.

M.3.4.3. Factor 3 – Interview: Key personnel, as indicated in Part I Section E of the SF 330 must attend the interview. The interview will not last longer than 45 minutes in duration and can be structured as follows: Firm Introduction/History (5 minutes), Key Personnel Introduction/Experience (up to 5 minutes per person; no longer than 20 minutes total), Questions from the panel (20 minutes). Interview evaluations will focus on the following areas:

- Specialized Experience

- Technical Approach to Complex Projects/Quality Control

- Responsiveness

- Four individual questions – how well each interviewee provided a thoughtful response that addressed key points within the solicitation documents and demonstrated an understanding of the requirements.

- How well did the firm as a whole demonstrate its ability to meet the requirements of the IDIQ?

- Overall Presentation

Interviews may be held in person or online via Microsoft Teams. In person interviews are preferred.

M.3.4.4. Factor 4 – Past Performance: Please reference M.3.5. (Volume II) for details.

M.3.4.5. Factor 5 – Location – Location in the general geographical area (SF 330, Part I, Section H). Proposals will be evaluated on the physical location of the prime contractor’s office (or Managing Partner’s office under JV agreements) that will perform the work under this contract. Offices located within 50 miles of Luke AFB will be evaluated as Outstanding. A Good rating will be given for offices located within 200 miles of Luke and an Acceptable rating will be given for offices within 400 miles of the base. Within 500 miles of the base will receive a Marginal rating and over 500 miles will receive an Unacceptable rating. Firms located beyond the 500-mile radius are not excluded from consideration. The location factor is one of several evaluation factors and will be considered in balance with the others as outlined in this solicitation. Google Maps will be used to determine distance from the prime offeror’s address (or Managing Partner’s address under JV agreements) to Luke AFB. The Government will use the office address provided in the SF 330, Part I, Section H for evaluation purposes.

M.3.4.6. Factor 6 – Capacity – Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time (SF 330, Part I, Section H): The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated ability to manage multiple, simultaneous task orders without degradation in performance or schedule throughout the life of the IDIQ.

Evaluation will consider current and projected workload, availability of personnel and resources, and the firm’s ability to scale effort in response to task order demands. Firms with the inability to perform around $5M in design work per year either due to existing workload or low manning may be rated lower based on the information provided.

M.3.5. Volume II – Past Performance Volume II shall address past performance via CPARS evaluations and PPQs. The CPARS evaluations and PPQs shall be tied to the example projects identified in the Offeror’s SF 330.

M.3.5.1. Factor 4 – Past Performance (CPARS Evaluations and PPQs): Past performance evaluations will be based on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of quality of work, compliance with performance schedules, cost control, management, small business subcontracting (if applicable) and regulatory compliance. Past performance will consist of Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations for previous Government projects and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for previous projects with private industry. Firms shall submit five previous projects that are recent and relevant. Recency is defined as active contract performance during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Ongoing design projects may be used if 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). Relevancy is defined as projects involving any combination of Mechanical, Electrical, Fire Protection, Civil, Structural and Architectural Engineering services.

Multidisciplinary projects performed on a military installation or Federal Government facility will be considered more relevant. Relevant past projects cost should be in the range of $75,000 - $2,500,000. 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), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

M.3.6. Volume III – Price (Required from Selected Firms Only) The Government will perform cost analysis on each Offeror’s price proposal to determine completeness, balance, and fair and reasonableness. Only proposals determined to be complete, balanced, and fair and reasonable will be eligible for award. Certified cost or pricing data is required in accordance with FAR provision 52.215-20.

M.3.6.1. 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 thereafter.

M.3.6.2. Unbalanced Pricing The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether proposed prices are unbalanced pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.3.6.3. Reasonableness IAW FAR 31.201-3 and 15.404-1, the Offeror’s 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.

M.4. EVALUATION STEPS

Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation process steps:

M.4.1. 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.

M.4.2. Step 2 – Responsibility Determination: Offerors will then be reviewed to make a determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1 and if found responsible, will be determined eligible for further evaluation under Step 3.

M.4.3. Step 3 – Evaluate Factors 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6: The Government will evaluate all complete proposals in terms of Professional Qualifications (Factor 1), Specialized Experience (Factor 2), Past Performance (Factor 4), Location (Factor 5), and Capacity (Factor 6).

M.4.4. Step 4 – Interviews: After completing Step 3, the Government will contact each responsible Offeror to coordinate a date and time for an Interview to satisfy Factor 3. The interview may be held in person or online via Microsoft Teams. In person interviews are preferred.

M.4.5. Step 5 – Rank According to Score: Offerors will then be ranked from the most highly qualified to the least qualified based on the number of points received during Step 3 and Step 4.

M.4.6. Step 6 – Analyzed Volume III – Price Proposal: The three most highly qualified firms will be invited to submit Volume III – Price Proposal. Cost will be analyzed in terms of completeness, balance, and fair and reasonableness. Fully burdened labor rates will be negotiated prior to contract awards. In the event the Government is unable to successfully negotiate fair and reasonable rates with one of the three most highly qualified firms, the Government will request Volume III – Price from the fourth most highly qualified firm rated under Step 3 and 4. This process will continue until the Government has three firms positioned for award. The Government intends to award three IDIQ contracts for this solicitation and will also issue a task order to fulfill the IDIQ minimum guarantee.