Draft RFP Attachment 3_DRAFT MACC Section M_Evaluation Criteria V2.pdf

DRAFT RFP #FA561324R0007

DRAFT Section M DRAFT Evaluation Criteria

DRAFT

SECTION M

EVALUATION CRITERIA

FOR

MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC)

DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FA561324R0007

700th Contracting Squadron

DRAFT Version 2

25 August 2024

DRAFT Section M DRAFT Evaluation Criteria

SUMMARY OF VERSION 2 CHANGES

Paragraph Description

N/A Draft number and date

3.1 Removed: "Past Performance information is also not requested and will not be evaluated at time of IDIQ contract award."

3.2 Corrected "Attachment 12" to "Appendix D to Section L"

3.2 Corrected numbering of score to "UNKNOWN."

4.3 Moved TRGS (Technical Rules for Hazardous Substances) from 9d to 10f

4.4 Clarified past performance recency of 7 years.

5 Added "have received an acceptable rating in Past Performance"

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. Award will be made to those acceptable Offerors whose proposals demonstrate Technical Experience within the Government-validated HTRO MTTR, with Acceptable Past Performance, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements, and who have been determined to be responsible in accordance FAR 9.104-1.

1.1.1 The Government is not evaluating price as part of this source selection as authorized by FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A). Therefore, the Government is not selecting a lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, nor will it conduct a subjective tradeoff.

1.1.2 In order to determine that a proposal represents the HTRO MTTR, the Government will also determine (1) if the Offeror is responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1; and (2) if the Offeror’s proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

1.1.3 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on the evaluation criteria described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

DRAFT Section M DRAFT Evaluation Criteria

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. Contracts will be awarded to each Offeror that meets the HTRO MTTR. The number is not known at this time.

1.3 Period of Performance. A base five (5) year Program Ordering Period. Four (4), 12-month Option Periods will follow for a total Program Ordering Period of nine (9) years.

1.4 IDIQ Ceiling. The ceiling of the IDIQ is $950M. The total value of all task orders (TOs) awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount in any given period.

1.5 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order. The minimum guaranteed order is €3,000.00 for the post-award conference. This amount represents the effort involved with the post-award conference. This is not a requirements contract and any Contractor that is awarded an MACC IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any task order beyond that for the post-award conference.

1.6 Proposal Substantiation. An Offeror’s submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government would unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

1.7 Discussions. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Government determines discussions to be necessary.

2.0 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE AND RESPONSISBILITY

2.1 Proposal Compliance. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, technical requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. If a proposal fails to conform to any requirements of the solicitation the Offeror may be deemed ineligible for award. Offerors are NOT permitted to take exception to any terms and conditions within the Request for Proposal (RFP).

The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the Offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of proposal compliance.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines it to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential

DRAFT Section M DRAFT Evaluation Criteria

OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract. Please see Section L for additional information and submission requirements for actual and/or perceived OCIs.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize the HTRO MTTR methodology.

The HTRO MTTR method requires the Offeror to score itself on Volume II: Technical Experience, based on the criteria described in Section L Instruction to Offerors.

The evaluation uses two evaluation factors, Technical Experience and Past Performance. There is no cost/price evaluation for this acquisition at the IDIQ level, and therefore there will be no trade-offs between cost/price and technical. The Government intends to conduct the technical evaluation in a single phase using a Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) Self-Rated Scoring Validation methodology where the Offeror’s Government-validated rating must fall at or above a Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) to be deemed an acceptable Offeror.

Following Government-validation of Self-Rated Scores, the Government will then evaluate the Past Performance Volume of Offerors.

As discussed above, pricing is not being requested nor will it be evaluated for purposes of award of the MACC IDIQ contracts as authorized by FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A). Pricing will be evaluated at the task order level. Past Performance information is also not requested and will not be evaluated at time of IDIQ contract award.

3.2 Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR)

The Government has established a Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) that an Offeror must meet or exceed in order to be considered acceptable for award. The Government has determined that an Offeror’s Government-validated rating represents its level of demonstrated capability to perform similar work, and those with a high level of demonstrated capability of the categories contained in the Scoring Matrix (Appendix D to Section L) present a lower risk of unsuccessful performance to the Government. The Government has set the MTTR at UNKNOWN points. The Government will only validate self-scored matrices at or above the

MTTR.

The Offeror’s Self-Score is the total of all points claimed for each category. The Government-validated rating is the total of all points that the Government evaluation team validates during their evaluation. The Government-validated rating may be lower than the Offeror’s Self-Score if the Government evaluation team is unable to find evidence for the claimed points within the Offeror’s proposal.

3.3 Evaluation Factors. The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section 3.1:

Factor 1: Past Technical Experience Factor 2: Past Performance

DRAFT Section M

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE

Section 1, Categories 1-6: RELEVANT CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

Category 1: Commercial, Industrial & Residential Bldg. Multi Trade In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of multiple trades within a construction project where the Offeror was Prime Contractor within the thresholds of: under €250k, between €250k and €1M, and over €1M. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with the strength of the Offeror’s Technical Experience its technical experience and expertise in performing multi trade construction projects, which is a top priority for the Mission Partner.

Category 2: Construction for the US Government In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of projects as Prime Contractor executed for the US Government both under and over €1M. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it demonstrates that the Offeror understands the nuances in performing US Construction Projects within the bounds of Germany.

Category 3: Multiple Construction Multi Trade In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned performing multiple construction projects in parallel. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with a basis for the strength of the Offeror’s management, capability, and ability to fulfill Mission Partners requirements.

Category 4: Utility System Construction In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to experience as Prime Contractor with Utility System Construction both under and above €750k. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to many construction projects that will be required under this MACC. It is important for the Government to understand the Offeror’s prior experience with Utility System Construction, as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 5: Construction in Secured Areas In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to experience as Prime Contractor with Construction in Secured Areas both under and above €750k. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to many construction projects that will be required under this MACC. It is important for the Government to understand the Offeror’s prior experience with Construction in Secured Areas, as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

DRAFT Section M DRAFT Evaluation Criteria

Category 6: Individual Trade In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to Prime Contractor experience in eight (8) individual construction trades, either under and above €500k or under and above €750k. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as these trades directly relate to many construction projects that will be required under this MACC. It is important for the Government to understand the Offeror’s prior experience with these eight (8) individual construction trades, as they directly relate to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Section 2, Categories 7-8: DESIGN EXPERIENCE

Category 7: Experience as Prime on Design-Build Projects In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the Offeror’s experience as a Prime Contractor with Design-Build projects. It is important for the Government to understand the Offeror’s prior experience and ability to identify potential risk and problem solve if, and when, unknowns arise in a given construction project. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to mitigating risk to the Government.

Category 8: Experience with Required German Construction Permitting In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of Contracts/TOs where German Construction Permits were required. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to understand the German Construction Requirements.

Section 3, Category 9: CERTIFICATIONS/INNOVATION

Category 9a: Certification for Construction according Water Resources Law (WHG;

Wasserhaushaltsgesetz) In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the Certification for Construction according Water Resources Law (WHG;

Wasserhaushaltsgesetz)). The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 9b: Certification for Waterline Construction (DVGW; Deutscher Verein des Gas-und Wasserfaches) In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the Certification for Waterline Construction (DVGW; Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches). The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 9c: Certification for Wastewater and Sewer Construction and Maintenance

(RAL-GZ 961)

In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the Certification for Wastewater and Sewer Construction and Maintenance

DRAFT Section M DRAFT Evaluation Criteria

(RAL-GZ 961). The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 9d: Employment Safety Certification (e.g. OSHA, AMS) In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to Employment Safety Certification (e.g. OSHA, AMS). The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 9e: Prequalification Certification according to § 6 VOB/A In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to Prequalification Certification according to § 6 VOB/A. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 9f: Environmental Management Systems (ISO 14001 Certification) In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to Environmental Management Systems (ISO 14001 Certification). The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Section 4, Category 10: STAFFING

Category 10a: Trade/ Construction Laborers In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Commercial Workers. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with basis for the strength of the Offeror’s ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 10b: Architects/Engineers In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Architects or Engineers. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with basis for the strength of the Offeror’s ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 10c: Certified Safety Manager (SiGeKo or Equivalent) In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Certified Safety Managers. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to mitigate safety risk and maintain safe construction sites.

Category 10d: Certified Building Energy Consultant In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Certified Building Energy Consultants.

DRAFT Section M DRAFT Evaluation Criteria

The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with basis for the strength of the Offeror’s ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 10e: Certified Fire Protection Specialist to DIN 14675 or equivalent In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Certified Fire Protection Specialists to DIN 14675 or equivalent. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to mitigate fire risk.

Category 10f: TRGS (Technical Rules for Hazardous Substances) Certification In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to TRGS (Technical Rules for Hazardous Substances) Certification. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Section 5, Category 11: GEOGRAPHIC EXPERTISE

Category 11a: Existing office within 25 kilometers of Ramstein AB In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to whether the Offeror has a construction office within 25KM of Ramstein Air Base. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provide insight into the ease of access to key personnel to mitigate issues/risks that arise during performance of the contract.

Category 11b: Existing office within 25km of Spangdahlem AB In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to whether the Offeror has a construction office within 25KM of Spangdahlem Air Base. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides insight into the ease of access to key personnel to mitigate issues/risks that arise during performance of the contract.

4.2 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.3 Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will then separately evaluate the Past Performance of each Offeror that meets or exceeds the MTTR. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance of each work sample provided by the Offeror in support of their Past Technical Experience self-rated score. The Government’s evaluation will assess the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated performance record. In determining whether an Offeror’s Past Performance is Acceptable or Unacceptable, the Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, the context of the data, and the general trends in the Offeror’s performance. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may also obtain and evaluate Past Performance information from any other sources, including but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and other databases, the Defense

DRAFT Section M DRAFT Evaluation Criteria

Contract Management Agency, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Government customers.

4.4 Recency. The Government will perform an independent determination of the recency of the data provided and/or obtained. Past Performance information will be determined “Recent” or “Not Recent.” In order for the Past Performance to be determined “Recent,” at least six months of the subject performance shall have occurred within the last seven (7) years, as of the date of initial RFP issuance. The Government will assign a Recency rating to each work sample submitted. The Government will not further evaluate work samples rated “Not Recent”.

4.5 Relevancy. The Government will perform an independent determination of the relevancy of data provided and/or obtained which is rated “Recent” per section 4.4 above. Past Performance information will be determined “Relevant” or “Not Relevant.” Work samples (contracts/task orders) that were proffered as support for Factor 1 Past Technical Experience self-rated scoring will be rated “Relevant” unless the Government downward adjusted the self-rated score to zero. A work sample submitted for Factor 2 Past Performance, but not under Factor 1 Past Technical Experience will be rated “Not Relevant.” The Offeror can only receive a Past Performance rating of Acceptable if the Government determines its work samples to be “Recent” and “Relevant.”

4.6 Past Performance Ratings. Upon determining an Offeror’s Past Performance to be Recent and Relevant, the Government will determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance and assign an overall Past Performance rating. The Government will assign a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable to each Recent and Relevant work sample prior to assigning an overall rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Government will consider, but is not limited to, information provided in the Past Performance Information. The Government may rely on Past Performance Information from any other sources.

The Past Performance ratings are defined in Table 2 below. An Offeror must receive a rating of “Acceptable” in Past Performance in order to be eligible for award.

Table 2 – Past Performance Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror's performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

DRAFT Section M

5.0 Basis for Contract Award

Award will be made to those acceptable Offerors whose proposals represent the HTRO MTTR, have received an acceptable rating in Past Performance, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and who have been determined to be responsible in accordance FAR 9.104-1.

6.0 Burden of Proof

The Burden of Proof for substantiating points in the HTRO MTTR Self-Rated Scoring Matrix rests with the Offeror. As stated in Section 2.0, the substantiating documentation shall contain sufficient data to validate points claimed in the Offeror’s proposal.