Section M -- Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

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 Factor.

1.2. Qualified Offeror. A “Qualified Offeror” is an offeror who submits a proposal that is determined to be “Acceptable” for all three Technical subfactors; Deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, as supplemented; and 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).

1.3. Technical Acceptability. “Acceptable” is defined as: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. “Unacceptable” is defined as: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1.4. While the Government source selection evaluation team 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 using a new approach, EPIC, in accordance with the authority at Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple Award Task or Delivery Order Contracts, dated December 13, 2017. The EPIC method 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: cover letter, model contract, EMR, and bonding capacity. 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. All remaining proposals will then be sorted according to geographic region for technical evaluation. The Government will conduct six (6) independent source selections, one (1) per geographic region. An Offeror’s technical proposal is valid only in the region to which it is proposing. A technical rating received in one region will not impact a technical rating received in another region. Offerors that propose on more than two regions will be determined “Non-Compliant.” 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 outside the submissions provided by the Offeror such as, Air Force installations where the Offeror performed or to 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. Proposals will then be evaluated for technical acceptability/unacceptability in accordance with the criteria in this Section M.

Therefore, 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 and 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. The government intends to further set-aside all orders less than or equal to $250K for competition amongst 8(a) awardees in each region for 8(a) small business fair opportunity evaluations in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), the provisions of FAR Subpart 19.5 as supplemented, and other applicable laws or regulations where appropriate.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

Offerors are responsible for submitting a proposal which is coherent, understandable, easy to reference, complete and meets all submission requirements. The Government will not make other than reasonable efforts to ascertain the meaning of a proposal submission, given that Offerors must follow these instructions for how to arrange and submit a proposal. Inadequate, incomplete or disorganized proposals may be found to be technically unacceptable, and evaluation of that proposal stopped, simply because the evaluators could not reasonably ascertain whether the proposal meets the technical evaluation factors of this solicitation.

2.1. Evaluation Factors and their Relative Order of Importance. The following evaluation factor and subsequent sub-factors will be evaluated:

Factor 1: Technical

Sub-factor 1: Design-Build Capability

Sub-factor 2: Roof Material Installer/Applicator Agreements

Sub-factor 3: Corporate Experience of Offeror

All three technical sub-factors are weighted equally and are 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.”

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. Any subfactor that is rated “Unacceptable” will result in the overall Technical Factor being determined “Unacceptable” rendering the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

Offeror’s failing to submit the required documentation in a sub-factor, will be rated “Unacceptable” for that sub-factor.

2.2. Factor 1: Technical. The technical proposal is comprised of three (3) sub-factors: Design-

Build Capability, Roof Material Installer/Applicator Agreements, and Corporate Experience of Offeror. To be rated “Acceptable” under any technical sub-factor 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. Sub-factor 1: Design-Build Capability. 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 must be 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 that all states in the region have an identified person(s).

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.

2.2.2. Sub-factor 2: Roof Material Installer/Applicator Agreements. This subfactor will be rated acceptable when the Offeror submits (1) a completed the 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) any 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 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. Sub-factor 3: Corporate Experience of Offeror. This subfactor will be rated acceptable when the Offeror submits a completed (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. The Offeror will be evaluated for a minimum of four (4) to a maximum of six (6) projects on the Corporate Experience of Offeror Worksheet to demonstrating experience on at least one of each of the four (4) different roof types [low slope, steep slope, Metal (hydrokinetic), and Metal (hydrostatic)] that it has either self-performed or managed as the prime contractor (subcontracted roofing work) relevant commercial roofing work within the last five (5) years.

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. See Section H, Clauses H-1 On-Ramp Procedures for Roofing & H-2 Off-Ramp Procedures for Roofing for the directions.