Atch J-8 Section M-220701.pdf

FA520922R0006, Attachment J-8 Section M

Date: 10 Jun 22

M-100 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Subjective Tradeoff (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' past performance information 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, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a solicitation requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The evaluation process will include the following:

A. Price Evaluation Factor. The government will rank all offers by the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), including base and option period from the proposed SABER Co-efficient Table at Attachment J-4. A TEP for each offer will be computed as follows:

The Offeror’s Priced Coefficients (percentages) will be applied to the government’s Estimated Value of Work listed for separate time and location of work. The total Price including Coefficient of each item will be summated to calculate the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price for all three (3) levels of the Range of Project Magnitude.

B. 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.3(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 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. Very Relevant contract performance efforts involved essentially the same magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in

Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as the effort 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.3.(b) of Past Performance Surveys/Questionnaire (Attachment J-5) and (ii) the evaluation ratings in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), 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

FA520922R0006, Attachment J-8 Section M

Date: 10 Jun 22 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. This includes, but is not limited to, management of multiple trades and subcontractors, management of multiple concurrent construction projects at a separate geographic location for overlapping performance periods.

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

D. Integrated Assessment. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest TEP. In that event, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. Offerors should note that the past performance evaluators may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance; the SSA, however, may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory

Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in the integrated assessment and best value tradeoff decision.