Attachment_10_-_Section_M.pdf

Attachment 10

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

14 June 2018

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using a Limited Tradeoff source selection process in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Department of

Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 1 April 2016 and Air Force Federal Acquisition

Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection as revised 3 October

2017. The Government will award one Requirements contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror (IAW FAR Part 9) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Past Performance and Technical, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror.

M-1.2 A Performance/Price tradeoff, is where the Technical factor is assessed on an

“Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis will be utilized. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source

Selection Authority (SSA) determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced offeror, when combined with technical, are approximately equal to price. The SSA bases the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors. While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.3 Award of Task Order Requirements. Upon award, the Government intends to issue a task order for the Building 1245 Renovation project. The Government reserves the right to issue a Task Order, subject to the availability of funds, within 60 days of award of the Requirements contract.

M-1.4 In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to follow all solicitation instructions; such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements; and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.

M-1.5 The Government may incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation as revised and supplemented through the final proposal revision.

M-2 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION

M-2.1 The Government reserves the right to award without discussions and make an award based on acceptable proposals; however, discussions or negotiations may be held and result in a requirement for a

Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Formal responses to discussion items and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the award decision. At the conclusion of discussions, if held, the Government and

Offeror must have a complete understanding of price, technical, past performance, and all terms and conditions of the proposed contract. All Offeror and any team member/subcontractor information must be incorporated into one coherent proposal to be considered complete.

M-2.2 Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the

Government.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS and METHODOLOGY

M.-3.1 Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Past Performance

Factor 2: Technical

Factor 3: Price

There are three (3) subfactors under the Technical factor as follows:

Subfactor A: Staffing Plan

Subfactor B: Recruitment, Training and Retention Plan

Subfactor C: Mobilization/Equipment Plan

M-3.2 FACTOR 1: Past Performance

M-3.2.1 Past performance shall be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. The Performance

Confidence Assessment will be assessed after evaluating all aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in the solicitation for Building 1245. For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors, and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime

Contractor’s team under this effort.

M-3.2.2 Recency. Recency is defined as a minimum of three (3) months of contract performance occurring within the last three (3) years preceding the issuance date of the solicitation.

M-3.2.3 Relevancy. Relevancy for this contract is defined as providing IMPS of similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities as outlined in the Building 1245 PWS (Section J, Attachment 04)..

The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the PPI contract reference. The

Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will assign a relevancy rating for each recent PPI contract reference IAW Table 1.

Table 1. 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-3.2.4 Performance Quality Assessment. For each recent and relevant PPI reviewed, the Government will evaluate all performance data obtained to assess the performance quality of each offeror.

Performance records will be obtained through one or more of the following: 1) the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 2) similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; 4) interviews with program managers and COs; and 5) other sources known to the Government.

M-3.2.5 Performance Confidence Assessment. The rating for the Past Performance factor is based on the evaluation of the offeror’s past performance data, resulting in an overall performance confidence assessment. The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to complete work of similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities as outlined in the Building 1245 PWS (Section J, Attachment 04). Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence assessment rating IAW Table 2, as follows:

Table 2. 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 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.

M-3.2.6 Adverse Past Performance. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation subfactor; or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. The Government may issue an EN for all adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had the opportunity to respond, or previous response was inadequate. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(4), Communications must be held with any offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-3.2.7 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 confidence”) performance confidence rating.)

M-3.2.8 Even though the assessment of past performance is separate and distinct from determination of responsibility required by FAR Part 9, past performance information evaluated may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful offeror.

M-3.3 FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL

Technical Acceptability Factor. The government will evaluate technical proposals for the Building 1245

Task Order on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 3 below. An overall technical factor rating must be “Acceptable” in order to be eligible for award. An

“Unacceptable” rating in any subfactor results in the overall factor rating of “Unacceptable.” A proposal with an overall rating of “Unacceptable” is ineligible for award.

Table 3. Technical Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M-3.3.1 SUBFACTOR A – STAFFING PLAN

The offeror will be rated acceptable if the plan successfully demonstrates the following elements:

Provides whole person manning levels for each labor categories for Building 1245 renovation surveillance services.

Provides an organizational structure to contain the following labor categories:

o Site Security Manager (SSM) o Construction Surveillance Technician (CST) o Cleared American Guard (CAG)

M-3.3.2 SUBFACTOR B – RECRUITMENT, TRAINING, AND RETENTION PLAN

The offeror will be rated acceptable if the Recruitment, Training and Retention Plan successfully demonstrates the following elements:

o Provides an effective and comprehensive recruitment plan that ensures sufficient, qualified personnel are hired and trained for each position and specifically identifies and addresses hard to fill positions, i.e. CST.

o Provides an effective and comprehensive retention plan to retain sufficient, qualified personnel for each position and specifically identifies and addresses hard to fill positions, i.e. CST.

o Provides an effective and comprehensive training plan to maintain a sufficiently trained workforce capable of providing the services as outlined in the PWS (Section J, Attachment

03).

M-3.3.3 SUBFACTOR C – MOBILIZATION/EQUIPMENT

The offeror will be rated acceptable if the mobilization and equipment approach meets the PWS (Section

J, Attachment 04) requirements for Building 1245 and successfully demonstrates the following elements:

o Demonstrates a thorough understanding of all Mobilization requirements and identifies priority allocation of resources and personnel.

o Provides a list of equipment IAW IMPS PWS Section 3.0 (Section J, Attachment 03).

o Provides a schedule that clearly depicts all mobilization actions with start and complete dates which ensures the offeror is prepared to begin contract performance at the conclusion of a 60-day mobilization period.

M-3.4 FACTOR 3: PRICE

M-3.4.1 Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price.

M-3.4.2 In addition to the price analysis as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). Unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposals.

M-3.4.3 There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation.

M-3.4.4 If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing fair and reasonable, other than cost and pricing data will be obtained from the offerors.

M-3.4.5 Price Evaluation. Price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of each offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the Building 1245 Renovation Project. To determine the TEP, the Government will evaluate offers for award by adding the CLINs for IMPS (CLIN 0001) and Mobilization (CLIN 0002). In addition all fully burdened labor rates proposed in Section J, Attachment 01, Tab 1 will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance.

M-3.4.6 Labor Category Pricing. The fully burdened labor rates proposed in Section J, Attachment 01, Tab 1, will be incorporated into the resultant contract. These rates shall be fully burdened and include all costs associated with providing the service and will serve as the ceiling rates for task orders throughout the life of the contract.