Atch J-8 Section M-100.pdf

FA5209-20-R-0008, Attachment A-8 Section M Date: 14 Jan 20

M-100 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Subjective Trade-off (STO) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement Procedures, Guidance and Information Subpart 215.3, and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors' combined past performance information and technical “acceptability” will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors.

Failure to meet a solicitation requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The government reserves the right to award a contract(s) to other than the lowest TEP. In that event the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the Technical Rating, Total Evaluated Price (TEP), and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. The evaluation process will include the following:

A. Technical Acceptability Factor. The government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally. The proposal meets the requirement of the solicitation as listed below when the offeror provided the complete and sufficient 35% design addressing all required disciplines IAW Specifications 01 11 00 Summary of Work section 1.12. and AF PGI 5336.9002 Air Force Construction Guide paragraph 3.2.2.1. Failure to submit any of these items may result in offeror receiving an unacceptable technical rating.

1: Required Validation and Design Analysis, developed to 35% 2: Drawings – Schematic 35% Design, Index of drawings to be prepared during future submittals 3: Outline Specifications, Index of specifications that will be developed during future submittals 4: Schedule of Material Submittals: List majority of materials to be procured to complete Mock Project 5: Complete Cost Proposal using the UPG

Table 1. TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

B. Price Evaluation Factor. The government will rank all offers by TEP. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed TEP. The government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis. A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17.

Total Evaluated Price: The TEP will be computed for each offer utilizing the proposed coefficients and mock project price proposed within the coefficient pricing schedule, attachment J-4a.

C. Past Performance Factor. The government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Attachment J-5a), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the government. If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with Sec L, paragraph L-100.B.4.(c), does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

(1) Recent past performance information (PPI) includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation.

(2) The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent/past performance information obtained to determine how closely those contracts performed relate to the SABER requirements. Relevant contract performance efforts involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. Relevant contracts may include maintenance, repair, alteration, renovation, and minor construction, utilizing multiple engineering disciplines of architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, or civil, with a project value ranging from JPY500,000 to JPY50,000,000 as anticipated under this contract. Very Relevant contract performance efforts involved essentially the same magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. In addition, the performance must have been concurrent (overlapping performance periods) with at least one other project of equal or greater magnitude and performed at a separate geographic location. Concurrent efforts and design-build efforts will be considered more complex and rated more favorably than non-concurrent and construction-only efforts. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENTS Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

(3) Performance Quality Assessment: For each of the recent past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on the (i) Quality Assessment Criteria evaluated under Sec L, paragraph L-100, B.4.(b) of Past Performance Surveys/Questionnaire (Attachment J-5) and (ii) the evaluation ratings in the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), if available.

(4) 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. The assessment process will result in an offeror's overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence. Offerors with no recent past or present performance history or the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the offeror is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 3 below:

TABLE 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Note: 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.

D. The government intends to award contracts without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

E. Integrated Assessment. In order to be considered for award, the offeror’s technical proposal must be rated as “Acceptable.” The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest TEP. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the Technical Rating, TEP, and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.