Section_M_revised_26_March_2015.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.225-17 EVALUATION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY OFFERS

(a) If the Government receives offers in more than one currency, the Government will evaluate offers by converting the foreign currency to United States currency using $1USD = 3.561AED in effect as follows:

(1) For acquisitions conducted using sealed bidding procedures, on the date of bid opening.

(2) For acquisitions conducted using negotiation procedures—

(i.) On the date specified for receipt of offers, if award is based on initial offers; otherwise

(ii.) On the date specified for receipt of proposal revisions.

(End of provision)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (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; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Offerors 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 or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

B. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) with a target of four (4) contracts. The Government reserves the right to award more, if the SSA determines it to be in the Government’s best interest based on consideration of one or more of the following items: the 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. All contractors who are awarded a contract as a result of this MACC solicitation will be awarded a task order to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award, subject to the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to issue a task order for the seed projects to meet the minimum guaranteed amount.

C. DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award contract(s) without discussions with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If at any time during the evaluation process the contracting officer deems discussions to be in the best interest of the Government, a competitive range will be established IAW FAR 15.306. It is possible that the contracting officer may determine that the number of proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. In such a case, the contracting officer may decide 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, pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). If this occurs, discussions will be held only with those offerors within the competitive range. Those outside of the range will be eliminated from consideration for award.

If, during the evaluation period, it 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. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined ineligible for award.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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

FACTOR 1: VOLUME 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Subfactor 1: Management Plan. The subfactor evaluates how the offeror will manage the project and account for fluctuations in the workload. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on their demonstration of their management capability, their capacity to execute projects under this contract, and their understanding of the possible fluctuations in work levels, how they intend to manage them successfully in order to provide continued performance and how they intend to execute architectural and engineering design requirements during the life of the contract.

Subfactor 2: Résumé. The subfactor evaluates the certification and experience of each offeror’s staff that will be directly involved with construction work under the MACC contract. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on résumés for, but not limited to, Project Managers, Construction Foremen, and all Project

Comment [TSM1UA3E1]: Added verbiage

Engineers for any construction project that may be executed under the MACC contract, and said résumés detailing the proper certifications and necessary work experience to execute the various work under the MACC contract.

Subfactor 3: Construction Phasing. The subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to demonstrate a construction phasing plan that is executable and takes into account real world factors that may inhibit construction in this environment. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on their ability to provide a construction phasing plan that describes major elements of the work, impacts by the Government, work required before and after the phase, and takes into account the ability to create phasing plans that take into account labor, material lead times, equipment demands, and critical paths, and their ability to build in accordance with USAF standards while operating in a foreign country.

Subfactor 4: Technical Specifications. The subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach for the seed project. The offeror will provide a written narrative describing their technical approach for the seed project. This proposal will be evaluated on their demonstration that they have fully reviewed all the project/contract documents and have a clear understanding of how to meet those requirements, how to build the facility in line with the correct facility and construction codes that are listed in those documents, and how to execute all disciplines applicable in the seed project and by narrative example.

Subfactor 5: Material Submittals. The subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to provide correct material submittals IAW Al Dhafra Air Base General Specifications. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on each of the submittals listed in Section L and the offeror’s demonstration, via submittals, that they have a clear understanding of the work required to execute construction IAW the SOW and the Al Dhafra General Specifications with zero to few weaknesses.

Subfactor 6: Detailed Work Breakdown. The subfactor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the labor, material and equipment required for the seed project IAW the CSI MasterFormat Divisions. A template worksheet at Attachment #2c of the RFP has been provided. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its demonstration of their ability to provide a breakdown that is properly organized, contains the breakdown for labor, material, and equipment, and shows that they have a clear understanding of the quantities required in each of those sections for the seed project to meet USAF standards while operating in a foreign country.

FACTOR 2: VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

FACTOR 3: VOLUME III – COST/PRICE

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor is as follows:

Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price are listed order of importance where Factor 1 (Technical) is equally important to Factor 2 (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is least in importance. Within the Technical Factor, all subfactors are of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

b. Technical Factor The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

(1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains three or more strengths and no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and

Comment [TSM1UA3E2]: Removed “and all disciplines”

Comment [TSM1UA3E3]: Reworded from, “disciplines via the seed project” to “disciplines applicable in the seed project”

(2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

c. Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the requirements of the MACC.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

understanding of the requirements. Proposal has one to two strengths and no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal can have weaknesses but no more than one significant weakness and no deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains two or more significant weaknesses but no deficiencies.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable. Proposal contains one or more deficiencies.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

TABLE 3 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying construction services that meet the seed project’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factors taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. 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, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and must have had a Period of Performance (PoP) of at least 150 calendar days. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Note, ongoing efforts must have begun at least three (3) months prior to the issue date of this solicitation.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment An assessment will be determined based on similarity to the MACC in terms of complexity, dollar value, and performance. The most relevant place of performance is performance that occurred within the United Arab Emirates.

The next most relevant place of performance is performance that occurred in the Middle East. The Middle East for the purpose of this source selection is defined as Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, West Bank, and Yemen.

Consideration will be given to management plans and how it handled fluctuations in work, résumés showing the required experience for each project, construction phasing plan and how it managed the scope and timing sequence, technical specifications explaining disciplines, how well material submittals are completed and approved, and a detailed materials breakdown. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference M002a.). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s).

In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions in Table 4 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance must have been accomplished in the United Arab Emirates.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Performance must have been accomplished in the Middle East. See M002, paragraph c.(2)(ii) for Middle East.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts to measure how well the contractor performed on the contracts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. 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. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality ratings identified in Table 5 – Performance Quality Assessment Ratings when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 5 – PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Rating Definition Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Neutral Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

d. Cost or Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for completeness and price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.305(a) and FAR 15.404-1. Each offer must be in both United States Dollar (USD) and United Arab Emirates Dirham (AED) currencies. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose proposed price is not determined reasonable. Price reasonableness may be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, historical pricing, current market conditions, comparison to the independent government estimate (IGE), and/or other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. In accordance with FAR 15.403-3, the Government reserves the right to obtain other than cost or pricing data if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer.

(i) In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), the Government will evaluate the total price of the initial task order price proposal to determine whether prices are complete and reasonable for the work to be performed.

(ii) The Government reserves the right to, but is not required to, conduct a price realism analysis on offers that appear to be exceptionally low and not supported by the offeror’s technical approach. In instances where an offeror’s proposed price(s) appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity by providing evidence of their capability and/or performance at similar price(s). The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the offeror. An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer that’s left unexplained may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. There is great expectation of competition for this requirement, thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front.

(2) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(3) 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. The price volume will also be evaluated to ensure all other general information/data required by the solicitation has been submitted.

(4) Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the proposed rates for other labor categories (either of the offeror’s proposal or the same labor categories as proposed by other offerors).

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), an offer may get rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(5) In accordance with FAR 15.305(b), the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.