Section_M_Flooring_IDIQ_8.22.19.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1. Number of Contracts. The Government intends to award one (1) Contractor for this Single Award Flooring IDIQ Contract. The Government reserves the right to award more or less contracts, or none, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it to be in the Government’s best interest based on consideration of one or more of the following considerations: expected volume of work over the ordering period of the contracts, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of best value proposals following completion of the evaluation of the proposals received. The offeror who is awarded this contract as a result of this solicitation will be for a one (1) year base period with four (4) one (1) year option periods, and will be awarded a Task Order (TO) to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award, subject to the availability of funds. The Government intends to issue a TO for the seed project to the best value offeror in lieu of a TO for the minimum guaranteed amount.

M.1.2. Basis for Contract Award

M.1.2.1. This is a competitive Best Value Tradeoff source selection where the Past Performance factor is considered slightly more important than the Price factor for proposals rated “Acceptable” under the Technical factor. To be considered for award, an offeror must: a) meet the Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, and conform to all solicitation terms and conditions in compliance with Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offeror’s or Respondents; b) receive “Acceptable” Technical rating; c) receive a Past Performance Confidence Rating other than “Limited” or “No Confidence”; and have a fair, reasonable and balanced price; and d) be determined responsible in accordance with (IAW) FAR 9.104-1.

M.1.2.2. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their price and past performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offeror’s must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale as indicated in Section L.6.4.4, Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements.

M.1.2.3. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements of this solicitation in terms of quality and affordability. In this source selection, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an integrated assessment best value award decision without discussions or will direct establishment of a competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions. In making an integrated best value award decision, if the SSA determines it to be in the Government’s best interest, the Government may trade up to a proposal with a higher Total Evaluated Price (TEP) that also has a higher performance confidence assessment rating. As such, award(s) may be made to a higher priced, technically acceptable offeror with a greater performance confidence assessment rating, over a lower priced, technically acceptable offeror with a lesser past performance rating (to include “Unknown Confidence”). The Government will not award a contract to an offeror rated “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” under the Past Performance factor.

M.1.3. Discussions and Evaluations.

M.1.3.1. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contracts without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offeror’s shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Technical, Past Performance or Price proposal. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the Contracting Officer (CO) reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

M.1.3.2. The Government will evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability then evaluate price reasonableness of all technically “acceptable” or “reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable” proposals, then rank by total evaluated price as follows:

a) Technical. The technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal. The evaluation will be accomplished IAW M.3, Factor 1.

b) Past Performance. The past performance evaluation team will evaluate the past performance of all offers.

The evaluation will be performed IAW M.4, Factor 2, and a performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and performance quality.

c) Price. The price evaluation team will evaluate each offeror’s proposed price for the seed project combined with the calculated price from the Flooring IDIQ Database to determine price reasonableness. The evaluation will be accomplished to IAW M.5, Factor 3, then proposals will be ranked by the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

M.1.3.3. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government holds discussions, at the direction of the SSA, the CO will establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c)(1) procedures and this solicitation. IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), the Government also reserves the right to 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. If the CO eliminates a proposal from the competitive range, the proposal will not be considered for award. Written notice of a CO’s decision to eliminate will be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1).

M.1.3.4. If anything during the evaluation period is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M.1.4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. Offeror’s are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offeror’s must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exception unacceptable.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1 – Technical Subfactor 1 – Proposed Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price

M.3. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals, assigning a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated utilizing the two

(2) technical subfactors below, as they apply to the Seed Project SON (Attachment 3) and General Requirements & Provisions (Attachment 1). The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a reasonable and complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in the Section L.4 of this solicitation. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal “Unacceptable” and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically “Acceptable”, either initially or as a result of discussions, will 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.

M.4.1. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M.4.1.1. Subfactor 1: Proposed Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project

This subfactor assesses the offeror’s technical approach to accomplish all work elements of the seed project, Project No. 1031882. This seed project is a tangible task order which the Government intends to award as the first task order to a single contractor under the new IDIQ. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the corresponding “Instructions to offeror’s” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 1: Proposed Execution and Completeness of the Seed Project

Instructions to offeror’s Evaluation Criteria

L.4.3.1.1. Provide a complete Statement of Work (SOW) from the Government created Statement of Need (SON) and Pre-Bid site visit for the Project No.

1031882, Install Sports Floor in Weightlifting Room, Bldg 152. The following essential elements are the minimum requirements for the SOW:

a) SOW Narrative. The SOW will be titled SOW, dated, include project number, title, and provide a narrative summarizing the proposed work.

b) (b) List of flooring elements. The SOW will also include a list of elements directly from the “Flooring IDIQ Database” excel document with the offeror’ s proposed price for each element that also includes the quantity

c) Bill of Quantities Calculation. The SOW must include a total amount adding all flooring elements in EURO.

M.4.1.1. The standard is met when the proposed SOW demonstrate the offeror’s technical capability for successfully executing and completing the seed project IAW the SOW and the proposal provides:

a) To be acceptable a clear and logically detailed narrative summarizing, the project details to include the title, date, project number, and a brief narrative describing the scope of work and rationale for each element selected from the “Flooring IDIQ Database” Attachment 2 is required.

b) To be considered acceptable the SOW must accurately list all elements required based on the project SON and the site visit to include the quantity which is derived from a joint measurement done at the site visit by the Government Point of Contact (POC) and Contractor.

c) To be acceptable the SOW must accurately depict the quantity of each element from the “Flooring IDIQ Database” Attachment 2 and sum all costs in

EURO.

TABLE C-1. TECHNICAL RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.4. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The purpose of the past performance factor is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to provide construction services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the offeror performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.

The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

M.4.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

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: Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases to include, but not limited to, interviews with Program Managers, Past Performance Information (PPI) POCs, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and/or commercial sources.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

The offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for three categories: Recency, Relevancy, and Performance Quality. The Government will only evaluate Performance Quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

M.4.1.1. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this RFP. Contract performance that meets these criteria will be evaluated in their entirety. Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be considered or evaluated.

M.4.1.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the effort performed under those contracts/task orders relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. Offeror’s are required to demonstrate performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope (broad range of repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and minor construction projects that involved flooring elements on various real property);

magnitude (historical average value of task orders is expected to be within a range from $15,000 to $100,000 or equivalent in dollars); and complexity (multiple functions/trades, including design-build, performance at multiple locations, etc.) than the effort described in this solicitation. The Government may give greater weight to performance on contracts where the offeror performed/is performing as the prime contractor. The Government may give greater weight to performance on contracts deemed more relevant; however, there will be no relative comparison between contracts assigned within the same rating (for example, a “Very Relevant” contract will not be rated higher or lower than other “Very Relevant” contracts). The Government will use the following DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, relevancy definitions:

TABLE 4 – RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

Adjectival Rating Definition

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.4.1.3. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s performance meets the solicitation requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the offeror’s history of adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. offeror’s will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

M.4.2. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessment of the recent contracts evaluated, offeror’s will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. This rating represents the overall evaluation of contractor performance.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant, favorable past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. NOTE:

The Government will not award a contract to an offeror rated “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” under the Past Performance factor.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessment, below:

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Adjectival 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.

M.5. FACTOR 3 – PRICE

The offeror’s price proposal for the seed project will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but will be evaluated for completeness and price reasonableness. The offeror’s price proposal for “Flooring IDIQ Database” Attachment 2 will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but will be evaluated for completeness and price reasonableness. Each offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by adding the seed project price and the “Flooring IDIQ Database” price.

The “Flooring IDIQ Database” price will be derived by selecting 50 elements from each CLIN then multiplying each element by 1000 and finally totaling all elements selected to create the price for the “Flooring IDIQ Database” Only EURO currency offers will be accepted. In accordance with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the six

(6) month extension price will be calculated by utilizing CLIN 4001 derrived pricing multiplied by 0.50. This derivative will be added to the “Flooring IDIQ Database”. This in addition to the seed project total price will make up the TEP.

M.5.1. Completeness. The Government will evaluate the Price Volume for completeness to ensure the inclusion and submission of the price data and other contracting consideration information required in Section L.6.

M.5.2. Price Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the price data submitted per Section L.6, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine the price reasonableness.

Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

M.5.2.1. Reasonableness will be based on the TEP in comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), historical actual for similar effort(s), and price competition obtained by the other offerors’ proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The offeror whose TEP is determined to be unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 may not be considered for award.

M.5.2.2. The Government will evaluate the individual line items of the seed project price proposal and the Flooring IDIQ Database to determine whether prices are complete and 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.

Note that incomplete proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement.

M.5.2.3. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

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.