(draft)_Attachment_2_Section_M_20_March.pdf

FA568219RA001

(DRAFT) M.1. SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize the Price-Past Performance Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced offeror or offerors to allow for selection of offers deemed to have a superior past performance history as judged against the criteria set forth in this request for proposals (RFP).

The Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements of this solicitation in terms of quality and affordability. The Government intends to award to offerors with highly effective program and project management processes and methods that assure high quality workmanship and problem resolution during the life of the MACC program performance period.

A single RFP will be issued with the anticipation of awarding approximately six (6) indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) construction contracts to those responsible offerors whose proposals conform to all the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, as well as all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and provide the best Price-Past Performance Tradeoff value based upon the evaluation method described in M.2. below. The exact number of awardees will be determined by the Source Selection Authority based on evaluation of proposals according to the criteria set forth in this RFP. Those offerors selected for the award of individual IDIQ contracts will create a pool of offerors, collectively referred to as the “Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC),” who will compete exclusively for future requirements identified by Aviano AB for competition under the MACC. Those future requirements will be defined in individual task orders.

M.1.2 Offeror proposals will each be evaluated for technical acceptability, past performance, and price. For those offerors whose proposals are determined technically acceptable, the Government may choose to award to higher priced offers based on their evaluated past performance. This is what is referred to as the “tradeoff” between past performance and price.

Offeror’s technical proposal and past performance, when combined, are considered approximately equal to price.

All contracts awarded as a result of this solicitation will be for a one (1) year base contract with (4) option years. The base contracts will be initiated by awarding an individual Task Order (TO) to each awardee for Orientation Training, which will cover use of the MACC, in order to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award (subject to the availability of funds). The Government will utilize a real construction requirement, Project No. ASHE 18-1025 RENOVATE EXPAND FAC.939 FOR EOD (the “Seed Project”) to assess offerors’ ability to accomplish technical requirements issued under the

MACC.

Of the MACC awardees selected, the Government intends to award a Task Order (TO) for Project No. ASHE 18-1025 RENOVATE EXPAND FAC.939 FOR EOD to the offeror with the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal (subject to the availability of funds). The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 240 calendar days from the date of receipt of offers to award the MACC minimum TOs and Project No. ASHE 18-1025 RENOVATE EXPAND FAC.939 FOR

EOD.

M.1.3 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the approval of the Source Selection Authority, may 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.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS

M 2.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will select the proposal(s) that gives the best value to the Government. To arrive at a decision, the Government will assess each offer in accordance with the following evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical

Sub-factor 1: Prior Experience Sub-factor 2: Management Approach Sub-factor 3: Technical Execution of the Seed Project

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price - Seed Project

M.2.2 Evaluation Process: The evaluation process to be conducted as follows. Proposals must meet the requirements of each step to advance to the next step in the evaluation process:

Step 1: Perform compliance review on all proposals to assess compliance with terms and conditions of the solicitation, completed representation and certifications and acknowledgement of all amendments.

Step 2: Evaluate technical proposals for technical acceptability.

Step 3: Assess past performance and price beginning with the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror. Evaluations will continue until the Government identifies the six (6) lowest reasonably priced, technically acceptable offerors with “Substantial Confidence” ratings or until the Government evaluates all technically acceptable proposals.

M.2.3 Specific Evaluation Criteria:

M.2.3.1 Factor 1 - Technical:

Evaluation Process: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each of the technical subfactors.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

Table M-1

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.2.3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1 - Prior Experience: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant experience on past construction projects completed in Italy to assess the offeror’s ability to complete task order requirements under this contract.

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the contractor submits a minimum of five (5) recent and relevant projects that meet the following minimum criteria:

Recency: Prior Experience information provided will be assessed to determine if it is recent. Recent construction projects are those that were performed or are currently being performed within the last five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Any ongoing efforts used by the offeror must have begun at least six (6) months prior to the issue date of this solicitation and be 50% or more complete.

Relevancy: Prior Experience information provided will be assessed to determine if it is relevant to this requirement. Relevant projects are defined as requirements that are similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude as defined below.

Scope: Broad range repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and/or minor construction projects on various real property facilities across multiple trades similar to the Seed Project.

Complexity: Projects requiring multiple trades, including design work similar to the Seed Project.

Magnitude: Projects consistent with the Euro value of projects anticipated to be executed during the MACC period of performance. Specifically, all submitted past experience projects must meet the following minimum requirements:

1. Two (2) construction projects with a contract value of €500,000 or less

2. Two (2) construction project with a contract value between €1M- €7M

3. One (1) design/build project with a contract value between €1M- €7M

4. Completed by the offeror as the prime contractor

5. Completed within the Republic of Italy

M.2.3.1.2 Sub-Factor 2 - Management Approach: The Government will assess the offeror’s approach for ensuring high quality and highly efficient management of projects throughout the life of the MACC performance period. Upon contract award, these plans may be incorporated into the basic contract as part of the contract requirements.

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how its management approach meets the criteria outlined in the right-hand column of the following “Management Approach” table (the corresponding “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is included exactly as written in Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Table M-2

Management Approach Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.4.3.2.1. Provide a detailed Quality Management Plan (QMP) to include, at a minimum, the following components to cover all activities, for both onsite and offsite work, by subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers, and purchasing agents:

a) Complete Quality Control (QC) organizational chart with a supporting narrative identifying precise lines of authority and responsibilities, including names, qualifications and duties of each person assigned to a QC function.

b) Procedures for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals.

c) Procedures for tracking deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action. Establish verification procedures that identified deficiencies have been corrected.

d) Reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats.

M.2.3.1.2. The standard is met when the proposed QMP approach assures high quality workmanship by providing effective Quality Control (QC) procedures, processes and methods for the life of the MACC program performance period and the proposal provides:

a) A clear and effective QC organizational structure that identifies precise lines of authorities and responsibilities, including names, qualifications and duties of each person assigned to a QC function, including project liaison personnel proficient in English speaking and writing.

b) Effective procedures for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals.

c) Effective procedures for tracking deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action and verification methods that identified deficiencies have been corrected.

d) Effective reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats.

L.4.3.2.2. Submit Multi-Project Management Plan for the

MACC

This standard is met when the proposed Multi-Project Management Plan provides highly effective processes and procedures for simultaneously managing multiple projects at multiple locations throughout Italy, for the life of the MACC program performance period.

L.4.3.2.3. Submit Change/Cost Control Management Plan for the MACC

This standard is met when the proposed Change/Cost Control Management Plan provides highly effective processes and procedures to manage contract changes and control cost for the life of the MACC program performance period.

M.2.3.1.3 Sub-Factor 3 - Technical Execution of Seed Project: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s understanding of the seed project design and the technical approach submitted to accomplish all work elements of the seed project.

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the seed project requirement. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the corresponding “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left references corresponding instructions from Section L.4.3.3 and is provided here for reference only):

Table M-3

Execution of Seed Project

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

Submit narrative “Design Validation Report”

This standard is met when the proposed Design Validation Report clearly demonstrates the offeror’s thorough understanding and acceptance of the Government provided design, demonstrating a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See Table M-3 Note)

Submit narrative “Schedule Plan” This standard is met when the proposed schedule, phasing plan, crew assembly, and safety plan logically supports the contract duration and adequately addresses a clear understanding of the project scope, including restrictions which must be considered in the schedule (e.g., permitting, long lead items, phasing, etc.) and an understanding of events associated with coordinating submittals.

Proposing a contract duration less than the duration listed in Section I will not add value to an offeror’s proposal.

Submit narrative “Technical Approach” This standard is met when the proposed Technical Approach adequately addresses a clear understanding of managing the contract and accomplishing all work elements of the project in accordance with the Technical Specifications and Statement of Work. To facilitate evaluation, the information provided should be specific, detailed, and clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirement for the accomplishment of this effort.

NOTE: Actual errors/mistakes/omissions identified during the design validation must be identified in the design validation report.

M.2.3.2 Factor 2 - Price:

Evaluation Process: The Government will evaluate the total price proposed for the seed project to determine whether prices are complete, balanced, and reasonable for the work to be performed. Note that incomplete proposed prices, either initially proposed or updated later as a result of discussions if discussions are conducted, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement. Only EURO currency offers will be accepted. The offeror’s price proposal for the seed project will not be assigned a rating, but will be evaluated for completeness, price reasonableness, and balance as follows:

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.

2. Price Reasonableness and Balance. 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 whether the price is reasonable and balanced. Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated. The offerors whose Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is determined to be unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 may not be considered for award. 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.

M.2.3.3 Factor 3 - Past Performance:

Evaluation Process: The Government’s past performance evaluation team will evaluate offerors’ past performance to determine the probibility of successful performance under the MACC program. The Government will also assess the recency, relevancy, and quality of offeror’s past construction projects. Each proposal will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described in Table M-5 below. Past performance of greater recency, relevancy, quality, and/or projects where the offeror performed as the prime contractor will typically be stronger predictors of future success and may result in greater consideration on the past Performance Confidence Assessment.

Elements of Evaluation: The Government will conduct the following Past Performance assessments.

1. Recency Assessment

2. Relevancy Assessment

3. Performance Quality Assessment

4. Performance Confidence Assessment

Measure of Merit: This standard is met when the contractor submits a minimum of five (5) recent and relevant projects that meet the following minimum criteria:

M.2.3.3.1 Recency: Past Performance information will be assessed to determine if it is recent. Recent construction projects are those that were performed or are currently being performed within the last five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Any ongoing efforts used by the offeror must have begun at least six (6) months prior to the issue date of this solicitation and be 50% or more complete.

M.2.3.3.2 Relevancy: Past Performance Information will be assessed to determine if it is relevant to this requirement.

Greater consideration will be given for similarities between the Management Approaches utilized on past projects and the Management Approach offered in Volume II of the offorer’s proposal. Relevant projects are defined as requirements that are similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude as defined below.

Scope: Broad range repair, alteration, renovation, maintenance, and/or minor new construction projects on various real property facilities across multiple trades similar to the Seed Project.

Complexity: Projects requiring multiple trades, including design work similar to the Seed Project.

Magnitude: Projects consistent with the Euro value of projects anticipated to be executed during the MACC period of performance. Specifically, all submitted past experience projects must meet the following minimum requirements:

1. Two (2) construction projects with a contract value of €500,000 or less

2. Two (2) construction project with a contract value between €1M- €7M

3. One (1) design/build project with a contract value between €1M- €7M

4. Completed by the offeror as the prime contractor

5. Completed within the Republic of Italy

After evaluation of each submitted past performance project, a single overall relevancy rating is assigned. However, there will be no relative comparison between offers assigned the same rating (for example, one “Very Relevant” offer will not be rated higher or lower than another “Very Relevant” rated offer). The Government will use degrees of relevancy outlined in Table M-4 when assessing past performance:

Table M-4

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.2.3.3.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will assess multiple aspects of the offeror’s past performance to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance including offeror’s history of adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction. This assessment will consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance information available, regardless of its source. This assessment 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.

The Performance 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. Offerors may be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Proposal volume, information on projects not submitted by the offeror, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include but not limited to: a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to the offeror’s previous customers, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) data, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) data, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) data, or other sources to include, but not limited to, interviews with Program Managers, Past Performance Information (PPI) points of contact, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), an/or commercial sources.

M.2.3.3.4. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the Recency, Relevancy, and Performance Quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating outlined in Table M-5. 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.

Table M-5

Adjectival Rating Definition

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.