SABER_SECTION M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOURCE SELECTION

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARDS

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable Offerors with the lowest evaluated prices, which are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and whose proposals conform to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to award to approximately three 8(a) contractors for the SABER program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or less total contracts or no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.2. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers:

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost/price when compared to Government estimates.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable without a major re-write, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS:

The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1 – Price Factor 2 – Technical Acceptability

Subfactor 1-Sample Task Subfactor 2-Safety and Health Plan

Factor 3 – Past Performance http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P25_3805

2.1. Evaluation Methodology:

2.1.1. A price evaluation will be performed on all offers in accordance with Section 2.2 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced Offeror. Evaluations will cease when an adequate number of technically acceptable proposals receive a satisfactory past performance rating.

Only those Offerors determined to be technically acceptable with a satisfactory past performance rating, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

2.1.3. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposals meeting the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors.

2.2. Volume I - Price Factor:

2.2.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness; (2) price reasonableness; and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.2.2. Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions will NOT be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.2.3. Price Reasonableness – The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria of price reasonableness.

2.2.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the Offeror’s price proposal. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of all proposed prices contained in the TEP Worksheet (Section J Attachment) for the Sample Task. The TEP is a fixed and contractually binding amount, if the Sample Task is awarded, and thus all applicable division price fields must be populated. An omitted price may result in proposal elimination.

2.3. Volume II - Technical Factor:

2.3.1. Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s technical proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government.

2.3.2. Technical Volume will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and assigned one of the following ratings:

2.3.3. Technical Subfactor 1: Sample Task - The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach is established as sound, feasible, effective, conforms with all applicable requirements of the Sample Task Statement of Work, and clearly demonstrates evidence of the full capability their team possesses for executing the sample task with emphasis on the elements below:

2.3.3.1. Detailed Drawings to Scale including but not limited to: mechanical plan, floor plan, electrical and lighting plan, fire suppression with calculations, structural framing plan, and communications (Comm.) data.

2.3.3.2. Material Submittals including but not limited to: doors, door hardware, flooring material, HVAC equipment, plumbing fixtures, and lighting.

2.3.3.3. Detailed approach of how the Offeror plans to execute the sample task including but not limited to: specifications such as tonnage and load calculations, balance reports, and structural analysis for each construction division shall be included in the narrative section of proposal when applicable.

2.3.4. Technical Subfactor 2: Safety and Health Plan - To be accepted, a Safety and

Health Plan must be approved by the Hill AFB Safety Office and meet the minimum requirements outlined in the Appendix C.

The submitted Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and/or Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates should be equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for the specific NAICS code identified in the solicitation. This is data the Government must keep on file as part of participating in the OSHA VPP. The Safety and Health Plan clearly addresses steps to maintain and/or improve your submitted rates or other comparable data as appropriate.

Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable

The proposal does not clearly meet some specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered “unacceptable.”

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

The Safety and Health Plan shall be reviewed and evaluated as either "accepted" or "rejected". If rejected, the buyer/PCO may then forward those specific reasons for rejection to the Offeror in order to negotiate with the Offeror as necessary. If discussions are held, they shall be in accordance with FAR 15.306. Any subsequent resubmissions of the Safety and Health Plan shall be reviewed for a final evaluation determination. If an Offeror fails to provide an accepted Safety and Health Plan, and that Offeror is a small business, the procedures of FAR 19.601(a) shall apply.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE:

3.1. Past performance information may be gathered from both Government (such as MOCAS

& CPARS) and commercial sources. For this factor, Offerors will not be penalized if no past performance information is available. Past performance will either be satisfactory, neutral, or unsatisfactory where satisfactory equals a neutral or determination of responsibility for past performance, and unsatisfactory equals a determination of non-responsibility for past performance. Any unsatisfactory rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b) and

19.6 for resolution.

4. DISCUSSIONS:

4.1. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, 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 Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

5. PRE-AWARD SURVEY:

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection.

Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offerors’ capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

6. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements as detailed in the SOW, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.