Attachment_1_-_Sections_L_and_M.pdf

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

L-I. INSTRUCTIONS OF OFFERORS

1.0 Proposal Information

1.1 General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined to be not eligible for award. If a joint venture, Mentor-Protégé, or teaming arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Proposals must be received by 366th Financial Acquisition Squadron/Contracting, Gunfighter Ave, Bldg 512, Suite 498, Mountain Home AFB, ID 83648, Attn: Kevin Kirkendall, no later than the date and time specified in Block 13 on the face page of the RFP. Offers received after the exact time set for receipt of offers will be considered late and therefore ineligible for award. However, the Government requests Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaires (PPQs) be received ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals. Failure to receive PPQs by the earlier date will not result in offeror disqualification.

1.2 Communications: Exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award to a target of five (5) contracts. The Government reserves the right to award more than or fewer than the target number of five

(5) contracts as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award the sample project to the awarded firm providing the lowest price for the sample project, subject to the availability of funds. The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 120 calendar days available to the Government for awarding the sample project. NOTE: At the time of award, the Government will issue a task order for the minimum guarantee amount to all of the contractors awarded a contract under the

MACC.

2.0 CD-R/DVD-R Section Organization

2.1 General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three separate sections as set forth below:

SECTION PAGE LIMIT

NUMBER

OF

COPIES DESCRIPTION

I No page limitation 2 Electronic Executed Solicitation Documents & Price Proposal

II No page limitation 2 Electronic Technical Proposal

III

15 Pages (3 pages up to 5 relevant contracts) 2 Electronic Past Performance Information Sheets

2.2 Proposal information: Sections I, II, and III shall be submitted electronically on CD-Rs or DVD- Rs. The sealed package used to submit the proposal package must show the time and date specified for receipt. Each CD-R or DVD-R shall be marked with the RFP Number FA489719RA004 and the offeror’s name and address, and the number of the Section, i.e. I, II, or III. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

2.3 Proposal Submission: Submission of the initial proposal packages via electronic mail will not be accepted. Initial proposal packages shall either be mailed or hand-delivered. Offerors are cautioned that Mountain Home Air Force Base has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass prior to entrance. Some delay should be anticipated when hand-delivering proposal packages. Offerors should allow for sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the specified office PRIOR to the time specified for receipt of proposals.

3.0 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:

3.1 SECTION I – EXECUTED CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION & PRICE PROPOSAL

3.1.1 Executive Summary: Submit a summary about the company, including the company’s CAGE code, small business categories, and identification of the name(s), email(s), and phone number(s) of the principal person(s) authorized to negotiate on behalf of and obligate the company.

3.1.2 Tab A – SF 1442. Complete blocks 14 - 20. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP.

3.1.3 Tab B - Acknowledge all amendments issued to the solicitation. All amendments to the solicitation shall be acknowledged in Block 19 of the SF1442 or by completing blocks 15a, b, and c of the SF30 to acknowledge amendment(s).

3.1.4 Tab C – Pricing Factor. In lieu of completing Section B, offerors shall submit a completed AF Form 3052 Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown, Attachment 4, and a completed Bid Schedule, Attachment 5, for the sample project.

3.1.5 Tab D – Section K. Complete the representations, certifications, and acknowledgments.

Section K shall be returned in its entirety. If the offeror identifies that paragraph (d) of provision 52.204-8 does not apply, the offeror shall submit all applicable representations and certifications identified as applicable under the provision.

3.1.6 Tab E – Complete Attachment 12, Determination of Responsibility.

3.2 SECTION II -TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

3.2.1 General Instructions: In the technical proposal the offeror shall provide a sample project proposal.

At a minimum, the section shall be divided so that the sample project proposal are placed in separate tabs within the technical section. The technical section should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. The technical section will be evaluated against the technical factors and standards identified in the Proposal Evaluation in Section M. Using the instructions below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying this factor. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation and identified in your proposal.

3.2.2 Section Organization: The Technical Section shall be organized according to the following general outline:

I. Sample Project Tab A. Drawings Tab B. Specifications Tab C. 65% Design Submittals

II. Project Management Plan Tab A. Project Team Tab B. Key Personnel

III. Quality Control Plan Tab A. QC Plan

IV. Performance and Payment Bonding Tab A. Bonding Information Request Tab B. Financial Information Request

3.2.3 Format and Specific Content: The technical section should address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of the technical factor.

3.2.3.1 Sub-Factor 1 – Sample Project – 65%: The Offeror shall provide technical approach to accomplish the design-build Demonstration Project. At a minimum, the proposed approach shall include all of the following essential components:

a. The contractor shall provide a complete 65% construction design which ensures the successful completion of the Demonstration Project. (Assume approval of your 35% design.)

b. Provide a plan that describes your procedures, processes and methods for tracing the progress of the project and interface with the Government which addresses overall performance for both design phase and construction phase. Description shall include, but not be limited to, a discussion of the overall performance time for both the design and construction phases, composition of the design-build team (including any major subcontractors) and their involvement throughout the process with particular attention to quality, timeliness and cost control. Include filled out AF Form 3064 Progress Schedule and 66 Schedule of Material Submittals.

c. Include a completed AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown. Offers should be complete, accurate, and sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirement. Offeror shall include narrative descriptions with the breakdowns for Direct Labor, Direct Material, and Other Direct Costs that explain the estimating methodologies/tools and assumptions used to arrive at the figures. The Government is NOT mandating use of any particular estimating tool for this contract. It is incumbent upon the offeror to describe what tools or methods will be used.

NOTE: The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. NO OFFEROR WILL BE COMPENSATED

FOR SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL.

3.2.3.2 Sub-Factor 2 – Program Management Plan: The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive Program Management Plan (PMP) developed specifically for implementation of the IDIQ MACC. In the technical Section II, the PMP shall include an explanation of the total project team management approach for both the design team and the construction team, a description of key personnel, as well as a résumé for the Project Manager. List any relevant experience or certifications the Project Manager may have. The PMP will also include a list of sub-contractors the Offeror intends to use for the sample project.

3.2.3.4 Sub-Factor 3 - Quality Control Program (QCP): The Offeror shall provide a QCP demonstrating an internal standard of quality which captures the surveillance, controls, and elements of the Offeror’s plan to ensure a quality construction project.

3.2.3.5 Sub-Factor 4 - Payment and Performance Bonding and Capability:

In order to assist in determining the offerors’ responsibility, offerors shall complete the Financial Information Request (Attachment 11), provide it to their financial institution, and instruct them to complete and return it to the Contracting Office not later than the required proposal submission date.

The Offeror shall complete the Bonding Information Request (Attachment 10), provide it to their surety, and instruct them to complete and return it to the Contracting Office not later than he required proposal submission date.

3.3 SECTION III –PAST PERFORMANCE

3.3.1 General: The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any Joint Venture member, Teaming/Partnering relationships, and Mentor-Protégé members in accordance with the format contained in the following paragraphs. Joint venture partners, Mentor-Protégé, and Teaming/Partnering Arrangement’s past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation, however, past performance on critical subcontractor(s) shall not be considered even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3.3.2 Contents of Past Performance Section: The offeror shall submit a Past and Present Performance Section containing the following information:

3.3.2.1. Table of Contents

3.3.2.2. Tab A. Summary Page describing the role of the offeror, teaming partner, mentor-protégé, and/or joint venture partner that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Information Sheets in accordance with paragraph 3.3.3 below.

3.3.2.3, Tab B. If the offeror is a joint venture, mentor-protégé, or teaming/partnership agreement, the offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the joint venture/teaming/ partnership agreement with the proposal. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the agreement.

3.3.2.4. Tab C. Past Performance Information Sheets completed in accordance with paragraph

3.3.3 and Attachment 9 in Section J. See paragraph 3.3.3 below.

3.3.3 Past Performance Information Sheets: Submit information on all relevant contracts demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. The offeror shall submit up to five (5) Past Performance Information packages (using Attachment 4). Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The offeror shall submit all recent, relevant

Past Performance Information packages identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial, for each prime, teaming partner, mentor-protégé, and/or joint venture partner. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past and present performance.

3.3.4 Recent and Relevant Contracts: Past Performance Information sheets referenced in 3.3.3 above shall include information on contracts that you consider relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform under the multiple award construction contract program. Provide data for all relevant contracts held within the last three years for each entity the offeror wants the Government to consider. Performance Information Sheets for each contract is limited to three (3) pages. Note that the Government will not consider performance on an effort that concluded more than three years prior to the issuance date of this solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate.

Relevant past performance information must demonstrate design/build and/or bid-build construction experience with multiple projects, such as new construction, renovation, alteration and repair, with associated architectural and engineering work, with multiple disciplines, such as carpentry, roofing, excavation, interior finishes, to include remodeling and interior modifications on real property facilities, electrical, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, masonry, HVAC, fire suppression, fire alarm, and other major trades. Projects shall be similar in size, scope, and complexity as those anticipated under this contract, i.e., having a project values of $250,000 and above, and include projects with the Federal Government, state and local government agencies, and commercial customers.

3.3.5 Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaires: The Government requests the offeror to send out Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaires (PPQs) provided in Attachment 8, in Section J to each of the Points of Contact (POCs) identified in the Past Performance Information Sheet for the contracts the offeror provided past performance information on. In turn, the evaluating agencies shall submit the completed questionnaires to:

via Email: emily.morrison.1@us.af.mil and kevin.kirkendall.3@us.af.mil

Evaluators shall send questionnaires directly to the Government. No questionnaire submittals will be accepted from the offeror being evaluated. Ensure each questionnaire completed is in direct correlation to a past performance submission. Once the evaluator completes the questionnaires, the information shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror. To allow the government ample time to survey evaluation questionnaires, offerors are encouraged to provide the requested PPQs to the Contracting Office by 4:00 PM (MST) 8 Jul 19.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-I. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0. Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the lowest-priced technically-acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The Government will evaluate the individual line items of the sample project price proposal to determine whether costs are reasonable for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or unrealistically low in cost when compared to Government estimates and comparison to competitor’s cost proposals, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program or failure to understand the requirements of the project.

For efficiency purposes, the Government will evaluate a minimum of eight (8) lowest-priced offerors for technical acceptability and past performance acceptability. This approach is necessary for future on-ramping of qualified contractors, as described in Section M-I, 1.5, of this document.

1.2 Evaluation Process: The evaluation process to be used is as follows. Successful completion of each step is required to advance to the next step in the evaluation process:

Step 1: The Government organizes all proposals in order of price proposed for the sample project from lowest to highest.

Step 2: Review proposals to ensure compliance with Section L, Instruction to Offerors.

Step 3: Determine whether clarification is required. If clarification is not in the best interest of the Government, remove non-compliant proposals from competition and inform the offerors.

Step 4: Beginning with the lowest priced proposal and continuing in order of price, the Government evaluates proposals for both Technical Acceptability and Past Performance. Both Technical Acceptability and Past Performance are evaluated independently, wherein if a proposal is found Technically Unacceptable, it will still be evaluated for Past Performance Acceptability. This evaluation process continues until eight (8) proposals have been found Acceptable for Technical and Past Performance.

Step 5: [deleted]

Step 6: The eight (8) proposals found to have an Acceptable rating for Technical and Past Performance have their Price proposal evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if they are reasonable and realistic. For a price to be determined reasonable and realistic, the offeror’s sample project total evaluated price (TEP) will not deviate more than 20% (+/-) from the average price of all proposals found Acceptable for Technical and Past Performance. Evaluations may continue until eight (8) proposals are found, which are determined to be Technically and Past Performance Acceptable, and Price Reasonable and Realistic.

Step 7: Of the eight (8) proposals that are determined to be Technically and Past Performance Acceptable, and Price Reasonable and Realistic, the five (5) proposals with the lowest price are chosen for contract award. The remaining three (3) of the eight (8) evaluated will be reserved for on-ramping.

1.3 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals

1.4 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award to a target of five (5) contracts. The Government reserves the right to award more than or fewer than the target number of five

(5) contracts as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award the sample project to the awarded firm providing the lowest price for the sample project, subject to the availability of funds. The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 120 calendar days available to the Government for awarding the sample project. NOTE: At the time of award, the Government will issue a task order for the minimum guarantee amount to all of the contractors awarded a contract under the

MACC.

1.5 On/Off Ramp Procedures:

1.5.1 The Government will ensure that an adequate number of contractors are available at all times to achieve effective competition on all task orders.

1.5.2 Contract holders are expected, in good faith, to participate in the task order competitions, and if successful, to deliver quality projects on time and on cost, to include management and supervision of subcontractors. If for any reason, a contractor cannot participate in a competition, the contractor shall provide written notice to the CO of the reason(s) for non-participation prior to proposal due date. On an annual basis, the Government will evaluate all contractors' participation rates, reason(s) for non-participation, and performance evaluations for task orders completed or in effect. Failure to participate in good faith on at least 75% of the issued Task Order Proposal Requests (TOPR) and/or an overall annual performance assessment rating of Marginal or Unsatisfactory may result in the contractor being off-ramped from the multiple award program. An off-ramp decision results in the inability to participate in future TOPRs.

1.5.3 In the event contractor(s) are off-ramped, the three reserved contractors selected during evaluation will compete on the next TO against the current pool of contractors. The TO will be awarded to the most competitive contractor from the reserved pool. The most competitive contractor of the three reserved contractors will be on-ramped and eligible to compete on future TOs. Selected on-ramp contractor(s) are subject to a performance validation review. The contractor(s) chosen to be on-ramped must be active in SAM and otherwise in compliance with the original multiple award solicitation. If found in compliance, the government will offer the identified on-ramp contractors a bi-lateral TO with the original guaranteed minimum specified in the contract. The original ordering period for contract holders is five years. No contract will extend beyond this limitation regardless of when a basic contract is awarded; however, the performance period of each TO is determined at the time of TO award.

M-II. PROPOSAL EVALUATION: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

1.0 [deleted]

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Standards:

2.1 Price Factor. Price Proposal will be evaluated at prices proposed for the Sample Project. The offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined utilizing the AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Form (Attachment 4). The sum of all total cost elements as totaled on page 2 of Attachment 4 will be the offeror’s TEP. The contractor’s Bid Schedule (Attachment 5) is for contract award purpose only. The bid schedule will be verified to ensure the total contract cost matches the AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Form (Attachment 5) [is this the correct attachment number?] total cost, however the Bid Schedule will not be used for TEP evaluation. The offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, including reasonableness and realism. For a price to be determined reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Additionally, for a price to be determined both reasonable and realistic, the offeror’s sample project total evaluated price (TEP) will not deviate more than 20% (+/-) from the average price of all proposals found Acceptable for Technical and Past Performance.

2.2 Technical Factors. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate technical proposal on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for the Sample Project and Project Management Plan, Quality Control Program, and Payment and Performance Bonding. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Proposal must be considered acceptable in all sub-factors to 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 discussions.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meets the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Sub-Factor 1 – Sample Project Proposal. Provide a complete proposal package as required in order to meet the requirements of the Sample Project. Provide a design and construction approach that describes the design and construction processes that will be used to meet the requirements of the sample project.

2.2.1.1. Measure of Merit. To clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation, the proposal must include the following:

Design: a 65% design that:

1. Demonstrates understanding of and accounts for all the required elements listed in

Attachment 2, MACC Statement of Work and Attachment 3, Sample Project Statement of Objectives;

2. Is free of major errors or omissions.

The following table/definitions will be used to verify that the design is a 65% design:

(Conceptual) (Materials) (Final) (Stamped) 35% 65% 95% 100% 100% Purpose Ascertain that the design approach and scope conforms to the Government's intent for the project.

Establish the "Schedule of material submittals" document the contractor will comply with and submittal dates for each item listed

Solidify the final design. This submittal, built on prior work, shall be submitted to Government for review and comment anticipating a rapid turn-around to the next and final design milestone

Forms the basis of the contractor's field performance requirements and shall be distributed to the Government, base stakeholders, and the contractor's sub- contractors

Drawings Show all major elements of the concept

Include dimensions and details, but not final sizing

Fully developed.

Shall include all redline comments from the 65% milestone

Stamped by contractor's design associates

Specifications Outline Specifications for most divisions, sufficiently developed to allow for materials identification for submittal purposes

Fully developed.

Shall include all redline comments from the 65% milestone

Stamped by contractor's design associates

Design Analysis Initial Full Updated from the 65% milestone

3. Includes a plan that:

a. Describes how the contractor will manage the overall project schedule through both the design phase and the construction phase, and how the contractor will communicate/interface with the Government to ensure the Government’s concerns are addressed.

b. Demonstrates executable performance time for both the design and construction phases and appropriately charts the schedule on, AF Form 3064, Progress Schedule (Attachment 6), and AF Form 66, Schedule of Material Submittals (Attachment 7).

The AF Form 3064 properly assigns percentages to work performed in all divisions required in the execution of the project, and accounts for long lead items, design time, Government submittal review time, and final inspection and punch list corrections within the performance period specified in the Sample Project SOO. The AF Form 66 is populated with appropriate items for submittal.

4. Includes a filled out AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown (Attachment 4), for the Demonstration Project that:

a. Demonstrates the offeror’s capability to estimate project requirements and material quantities accurately.

b. Breaks out Direct Material quantities, Direct Labor types and hours, Other Direct quantities/hours, and explains the estimating methodologies/tools used in sufficient detail that the Government evaluation team can clearly determine the following:

i. Proposed materials and labor reflect a clear understanding of the requirement

ii. Proposed materials and labor account for all major elements of work

iii. And are not inconsistent with the offeror’s technical approach

2.2.2 Sub-Factor 2 – Program Management Plan (PMP). The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive PMP developed specifically for implementation of this IDIQ MACC. The PMP shall discuss the management approach used for design, site clearing and demolition, construction, and completion/turn-over. The information in the PMP shall make it clear that the Offeror has the ability to deliver a quality product and effectively manage the designers, consultants, and subcontractors on the team, as well as the ability to coordinate all work throughout the design and construction phases. The PMP shall include an explanation of the total project team management approach for both the design team and the construction team as well as a résumé for the Project Manager. List any relevant experience or certifications the Project Manager may have that will help the Government determine their ability to oversee projects under the IDIQ MACC contract. The PMP will identify Key Personnel by describing roles and responsibilities; in addition a list of proposed subcontractors and a statement of their capabilities as they pertain to the sample project will be required.

2.2.2.1. Measure of Merit. This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses the items identified above in paragraph 2.2.2. Ensure your plan addresses (1) your approach to hiring qualified key project and support staff, (2) your approach to managing the project and accounting for fluctuations in the workload, (3) your approach to subcontractor management, and (4) how you intend to execute architectural and engineering design requirements during the life of the contract.

2.2.3 Sub-Factor 3 – Quality Control Program (QCP): The offeror shall provide a two-page (maximum) narrative describing the contractor’s overall Quality Control approach to the basic IDIQ MACC and how it will be applied to individual projects; narrative includes the method and frequency of inspections, names, qualifications and experience of QA personnel, scope of their responsibilities and authority, and clearly states that QA personnel are separate and distinct from, and are not supervised by, on site project management or superintendent personnel; narrative clearly describes how the QA approach will be utilized to mitigate risks related to projects on or near the airfield. The plan must also address methods to be used for identifying and preventing defects.

2.2.3.1 Measure of Merit. This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses the items identified above in paragraph 2.2.3.

2.2.4 Sub-Factor 4 - Payment and Performance Bonding and Capability: To clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation, the proposal must demonstrate that the offerror possesses financial capacity, bonding, and business relationships to successfully perform two simultaneous construction projects with a combined value of $10M. The proposal must demonstrate access to cash and/or lines of credit totaling at least $100,000.00. The proposal must demonstrate a minimum bonding capacity of $5M per project/$10M aggregate. Capability to perform at least two or more construction disciplines under NAICS code 236220, such as construction, alteration or repair of roads, buildings, structures, utilities, plumbing, roofing, paving, grading, excavating, or demolition

2.2.4.1 Measure of Merit. This subfactor will be considered acceptable if the offeror’s proposal clearly and logically addresses the items identified above in paragraph 2.2.4, and that the Financial Information request and Bonding Information Request have been received by the proposal due date.

Note: To be found “technically acceptable” overall, a proposal must be found to be acceptable for ALL technical subfactors described above.

2.3. Past Performance Factor: The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of present and past performance in providing construction services that meet the customers’ needs, and assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this effort.

Performance is assessed as the overall performance factor level based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance on individual projects/contracts.

Only those proposals determined to be acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Proposal must be considered acceptable in all sub-factors to be considered for award.

2.3.1 Sub-Factor 1 - Recency: Offerors must demonstrate performance on all projects/contracts being currently performed and/or that were performed within the last three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation. This includes contracts that were awarded prior to this period, but still had performance during the recency timeframe. Past performance information that does not meet these conditions will not be further evaluated.

2.3.2 Sub-Factor 2 - Relevancy: Offerors will be evaluated on the extent the offeror’s past performance is deemed relevant to this requirement. The Government will determine relevancy based on the following criteria: 1) Relevant past performance information must demonstrate design/build and/or bid-build construction experience with multiple projects, such as new construction, renovation, alteration and repair, with associated architectural and engineering work, with multiple disciplines, such as carpentry, roofing, excavation, interior finishes, to include remodeling and interior modifications on real property facilities, electrical, plumbing, sheet metal, painting, demolition, masonry, HVAC, fire suppression, fire alarm, and other major trades and 2) having a project values of $250,000.00 and above.

While projects submitted may be for any of the above divisions, offerors may not submit more than one project that focuses exclusively on a specific specialty. Multiple projects of a similar nature that encompass a variety of subspecialties are acceptable. Past performance information that fails these conditions will not be evaluated. Joint venture partners, Mentor-Protégé, and Teaming/Partnering Arrangement’s past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation, however, past performance on critical subcontractors shall not be considered. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing past performance:

Adjectival Rating

Description

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved multi-disciplined construction work on project(s) exceeding $250,000, and the contractor performed as a critical subcontractor. This includes stand-alone contracts and individual Task Orders.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the construction scope and magnitude of effort.

2.3.3. Other Sources of Past Performance: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts related in the past performance questionnaire responses, and in addition will utilize the Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may obtain from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, interviews with Government customers and, as applicable, commercial clients, when assigning a past performance rating. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.3.1. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or teaming arrangement 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.

2.3.4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

RATING DEFINITION

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) Past performance is Recent and Relevant

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Past performance is either not recent and/or relevant.

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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

2.3.5. Tradeoffs will not be considered. This is a “Lowest Priced - Technically Acceptable” evaluation.

2.4. AWARD: The government intends to evaluate proposals without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, it is imperative that each offeror submit their best terms with their initial proposal. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Contracting Officer will notify offerors as required. If used, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. The government intends to award a minimum of five (5) contracts to contractors determined responsible as defined in FAR 9.104-1 and who provide the best value to the government in accordance with the LPTA evaluation approach defined in this solicitation. Subsequent projects will be competed among the awarded IDIQ contract holders and awarded in accordance with the ordering clause and the “fair opportunity procedure” in the contract.