Attachment 8, Section M 11.20.19.pdf

SSP Attachment 4 – Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 15.3, as supplemented, during evaluation of proposals. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with (IAW) the Technical factor, which has three (3) subfactors. A proposal will be determined Technically Acceptable when all technical subfactors receive an Acceptable rating.

Technical subfactors are: (1) Design-Build Capability, (2) Roof Material Installer/Applicator Agreements, and (3) Corporate Experience of Offeror. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated against the Government’s minimum requirements to determine whether the proposal is “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1. Their evaluation will be fully supported by the narrative findings, which will provide rationale as to why the technical subfactors are rated as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. Only those proposals determined to be Technically Acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Using the Exclusion of Price In Competition (EPIC) source selection methodology IAW DoD Class Deviation 2018-O0006, all Qualifying Offerors will receive an award. The class deviation defines a Qualifying Offeror as: “an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to proposal other than fair and reasonable pricing.”

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for contract award. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with

FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3 Source Selection, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3.

These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will make award to each and all qualifying Offerors based on an assessment of the technical subfactors.

1.2. Qualifying Offeror. IAW DoD Class Deviation 2018-O0006 a “Qualifying Offeror” as:

“an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source (in accordance with the FAR Part 9), submits a technically acceptable proposal (in all factors and all three (3) subfactors) that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to propose other than fair and reasonable pricing.”

https://www.acquisition.gov/content/part-15-contracting-negotiation#i1108536 https://www.acquisition.gov/content/part-15-contracting-negotiation#i1108536 https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003813-17-DPAP.pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003813-17-DPAP.pdf https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003813-17-DPAP.pdf

1.3. Technical Acceptability. “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” definitions from DFARS

215.3 is shown in the table below.

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

1.4. While the Government Source Selection Team (SST) and the Source Selection Authority

(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.

1.5. Evaluation Methodology. This source selection will be conducted, evaluated, and awarded in accordance with the authority at DoD Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts, dated December 13, 2017. The R3M team named this approach, the Exclusion of Price In Competition (EPIC) method, the deviation authorizes Contracting Officers (COs), “when issuing a solicitation that will result in multiple-award contracts issued for the same or similar services, may exclude price or cost as an evaluation factor for the contract awards, if the solicitation states that the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying Offerors.”

1.5.1. Compliance Assessment. The Government will perform an initial assessment of all proposals for compliance with Section L. The proposals will be evaluated for the submission of four (4) items: complete cover letter, complete model contract, demonstrated, acceptable EMR of <1, and demonstrated, acceptable bonding capacity as described in Section L. If at any stage in this four (4) part assessment a proposal is found to be non-compliant, the assessment is terminated and the proposal is no longer eligible for award. The Government will conduct one (1) source selection for all regions. An Offeror’s proposal is valid only in the region to which it is proposing; an Offeror may propose in a maximum of two (2) regions, and must submit separate, stand-alone proposals, one (1) for each region. Offerors that propose on three (3) or more regions will be determined “Non-Compliant” for all proposals and no further reviews will be conducted on any submission. A compliance rating received in one region will not impact a compliance rating received in a second region. During the compliance review, the CO will reference other sources to determine contractor responsibility, including but not limited to Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Past Performance Integrated Reporting System (PPIRS), and System for Award Management (SAM). The CO may also gather performance information from sources such as Air Force installations where the Offeror performed, manufacturers who have issued to the Offeror its installer/applicator agreements, State Better Business Bureau, Dun & Bradstreet, etc.

The CO will comply with FAR Subpart 19.6, Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility, for any small business Offeror determined to be not responsible.

1.5.2. Technical Assessment. All compliant proposals will then be evaluated for technical acceptability/unacceptability in accordance with the criteria in this https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003813-17-DPAP.pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003813-17-DPAP.pdf https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA003813-17-DPAP.pdf http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/19.htm#P522_119230

Section M, Paragraph 2 – Evaluation Factors. A technical rating received in one region will not impact a technical rating received in the second region. The Government anticipates awarding Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for the Roofing Repair, Replacement, and Maintenance (R3M) effort to each and all Qualifying Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to make no awards at all as determined to be in the best interest of the Government subject to the availability of funds.

1.6. Rejection of Unacceptable Offers. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unacceptable in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, representations, or certifications. All proposals must comply with formatting specified in Section L. Therefore, the proposal may be deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or an inherent failure to understand/comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. Failure to submit all documentation may result in a proposal being rated “non-compliant” and therefore ineligible for award.

Noncompliance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements would raise serious questions regarding an Offeror’s technical ability or performance capability and would be grounds to eliminate the proposal from consideration for contract award. Failure to include all information requested would adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the RFP will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will be easy for the Government to understand and will enable the Government to perform a thorough and fair evaluation. If awards are made without discussions, then all proposals that are either determined to be “non-compliant” or rated “unacceptable” on any subfactor will be ineligible for award.

1.7. Discussions. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions [except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)]. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1.8. 8(a) Small Business. This solicitation is intended to result in award of R3M IDIQ contracts to each and all qualifying small business Offerors, in accordance with the RFP.

The government intends to reserve at least two (2) 8(a) IDIQ awards for each region. This could result in a mix of 8(a) small businesses and other small businesses (within the NAICS code 238160) as R3M contract holders.

2. EVALUATION FACTOR

Offerors are responsible for submitting a proposal which is coherent, understandable, easy to reference, complete and meets all submission requirements. Inadequate, incomplete, or disorganized proposals may be found unacceptable and evaluation of the proposal stopped, simply because the evaluators could not reasonably ascertain whether the proposal meets the technical evaluation factors of this solicitation.

2.1. Evaluation Factor and Subfactors. The following evaluation factor and subsequent subfactors will be evaluated:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Design-Build Capability

Subfactor 2: Roof Material Installer/Applicator Agreements

Subfactor 3: Corporate Experience of Offeror

All three technical subfactors will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Acceptable/Unacceptable are defined below. In order to be eligible for an award, an Offeror’s overall technical proposal must be rated “Acceptable” in all three subfactors. To be rated “Acceptable” in a subfactor, all aspects of the subfactor must be fully substantiated to the satisfaction of the Government as described in this solicitation. If the Offeror fails to submit the required documentation in a subfactor, the subfactor will be rated “Unacceptable”. Any subfactor that is rated “Unacceptable” will render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical: The technical proposal is comprised of three (3) subfactors:

Design-Build Capability, Roof Material Installer/Applicator Agreements, and Corporate Experience of Offeror. To be rated “Acceptable” under any technical subfactor an Offeror must submit all of the required documentation fully substantiated to the satisfaction of the Government as described in this solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1 – Design-Build Capability: (Reference Section L, Para 6.1 through

6.1.3 for completeness.) This subfactor will be rated acceptable when the Offeror submits a completed (1) the Design-Build Capability Worksheet identifying design-build capabilities; (2) documentation of Professional Engineer (PE), Registered Architect (RA), or Registered Roofing Consultant (RRC) credentials;

and (3) documentation of subcontractor agreements on subcontractors’ company letterhead.

2.2.1.1. Design-Build Capability Worksheet: The design build capability worksheet will be evaluated for completeness in accordance with the instructions outlined in Section L and to ensure that all states in the region where work will be performed have an identified person(s). (NOTE:

Only states with active-duty USAF bases located in the selected region will be evaluated at the IDIQ-level. States without active-duty USAF bases will not be evaluated at the IDIQ-level, but may be evaluated at the task order-level if/when applicable.)

2.2.1.2. Credentials Documentation: The credentials documentation will be evaluated for submission in accordance with the instructions in Section L and for inclusion of documentation for all person(s) named in the worksheet. The Government reserves the right to verify with issuing entity for validity of the credential(s).

2.2.1.3. Documentation of Subcontractor Agreement: If PE, RA or RRC is not an employee of the Offeror, then the documentation of agreement/consent signed by Offeror and PE, RA or RRC subcontractor showing intent to perform potential design-build work will be evaluated for submission in accordance with the instructions in Section L. Documentation will be evaluated for each state in the region where Offeror intends to subcontract design-build work. (NOTE: Only states with active-duty USAF bases located in the selected region will be evaluated at the IDIQ-level.

States without active-duty USAF bases will not be evaluated at the IDIQ-level, but may be evaluated at the task order-level if/when applicable.)

2.2.2. Subfactor 2 – Roof Material Installer/Applicator Agreements: (Reference

Section L, Para 6.2 through 6.2.3 for completeness.) This subfactor will be rated acceptable when the Offeror submits (1) a completed Roof Material/Membrane Worksheet identifying whether it will self-perform or subcontract the installation/application of the listed roof materials/membranes at each base in the proposed region, any proposed subcontractors, and roofing material/membrane manufacturers whose materials the Offeror or stated subcontractor is authorized to install/apply; (2) documentation from roofing materials/membranes manufacturers authorizing installation/application capabilities; and (3) all applicable letters of commitment.

2.2.2.1. Roof Material/Membrane Worksheet: The Roof Material/Membrane

Worksheet will be evaluated for completeness in accordance with the instructions in section L. Work actually performed or subcontractors actually used during performance of the contract may differ without permission from the Government as long as the Offeror is in compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (Jan 2019)

(DEVIATION 2019-O0003).

2.2.2.2. Documentation of Installer/Applicator Agreements: The Offeror will be evaluated for submission in accordance with the instructions in section L and their record of manufacturer installer/applicator certificates (or equivalent) corresponding to manufacturer(s) listed in the Roof Material/Membrane Worksheet.

2.2.2.3. Letters of Commitment: The Offeror will be evaluated for submission in accordance with the instructions in section L for those roof type/materials that the Offeror may potentially subcontract, where asked for letters of commitment on company letterhead acknowledging the intent to complete potential subcontracted work and their permission to utilize their manufacturer’s installer certification.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3 – Corporate Experience of Offeror: This subfactor will be rated acceptable when the Offeror submits a completed (Reference Section L, Para 6.3 through 6.3.1.2 for completeness.) (1) Corporate Experience of Offeror Worksheet used to describe the Offeror’s related corporate experience, as well as four to six recent and relevant projects that the Offeror has either self-performed or managed as the prime contractor.

2.2.3.1. Corporate Experience of Offeror Worksheet: The Corporate Experience of

Offeror Worksheet will be evaluated for completeness in accordance with the instructions in Section L. Then the submission will be evaluated to ensure demonstration of recency and relevancy of the four (4) mandatory example columns. If one example is not deemed recent or relevant then the optional example projects will be evaluated.

3. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

3.1. 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 to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Price will not be evaluated at the IDIQ level, but will be evaluated on individual task orders.

3.2. The Government reserves the right to On-Ramp and Off-Ramp contractors in the future to sustain the viability of the program. For details, see Section H – Special Contract Requirements of the RFP, Clauses H-01 On-Ramp Procedure and H-02 Off-Ramp Procedure.

SSP Attachment 4 – Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award