Section_M_25_Nov_2015.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC) III

SOURCE SELECTION

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARDS

1.1 This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 04 March 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the AF FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.1 whose proposal conforms to the solicitation 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 sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded - The Government intends to award approximately 5-6 Offerors an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the MACC III Source Selection. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or less contracts or no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest.

In addition to the IDIQ contract award, the Government intends to issue a single task order for the Seed Project to the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Offeror for the Seed Project within the pool of eligible awardees for the basic contract (as determined by the government). This may or may not be the offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as the Seed Project is only one component of the TEP (see 2.3.4 below). However, issuance of the Seed Project task order is at the sole discretion of the Government. Notice to Offeror(s)/Supplier(s): Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date.

If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by Offeror(s). The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award(s) without discussions, however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that doing so would be in its best interest

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals - The Government will consider, through the evaluation, the

“correction potential” of an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirement, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, if one is established, or contract award.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS:

2.1 The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and sub-factors below:

Factor 1 – Price

Factor 2 - Technical Acceptability (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Sub-Factor One: Seed Project – Renovation of Building 270 Sub-Factor Two: Architect-Engineer (A-E) Qualifications Sub-Factor Three: Contractor Requirements

Factor 3 - Past Performance (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

2.2 Evaluation Methodology:

2.2.1 A price evaluation will be performed for all Offerors IAW this section and section 2.3 below.

Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.2.1.1 Technical and past performance evaluations will be performed beginning with the lowest priced Offeror(s).

2.2.1.2 If a sufficient number of Offeror(s) as determined by the Government are technically acceptable, have acceptable past performance, and meet all other requirements of this solicitation, award may be made to those Offerors without discussions.

2.2.1.3 If a sufficient number of Offeror(s) as determined by the Government are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

Continue evaluating additional offers and award to the next lowest price 2.2.1.3.1 technically acceptable Offeror(s) with acceptable past performance; or

Enter into discussions and establish a competitive range. The contracting officer 2.2.1.3.2 may determine the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

2.2.2 Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability. It is possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance.

2.2.3 Technical and past performance evaluation of an Offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

2.3 Volume I - Price:

2.3.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) TEP.

2.3.2 Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using analysis of the provided information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

2.3.3 Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more price elements such as divisions are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the proposals. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

2.3.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) - The TEP will be calculated as follows using Section J - Attachment

2, R1 Pricing Matrix:

2.3.4.1 The sum of the Seed Project total proposed price as contained in the Seed Project Rollup Costs Worksheet (Cell E21) utilizing the Not to Exceed (NTE) Rates (see below paragraph and Section J - Attachment 2 Pricing Matrix). Please note that this price will be contractually binding and may be awarded at the Government’s sole discretion.

2.3.4.2 The sum of the notional amount application to Offeror’s proposed NTE Rates for

Professional labor category hours (not subject to the Construction Wage Rate Requirements Statute – formerly Davis-Bacon Act, as contained in the Notional Amount Application Worksheet in the Section J – Attachment 2 Pricing Matrix. The notional hours will be determined by the Government before proposals are evaluated and will be equally applied to all Offerors. The notional hours will not be disclosed to Offerors.

Although the notional hours are for evaluation purposes only, the rates proposed will be contractually binding and shall be NTE amounts for any future Task Order proposals under this contract.

2.4 Volume II - Technical Acceptability:

2.4.1 Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to the Statement of Work (SOW) sections required in Section L – Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, 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. The Government may make a final determination as to the Offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the Offeror. The Offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

2.4.2 Technical Acceptability - The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.”

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

2.4.3 Sub-factor One: Seed Project - Renovation of Building 270

Sub-factor One minimum acceptability is met with compliance with all the following:

2.4.3.1 The proposal requirements listed in Section L, paragraph 5.3. will be evaluated as follows:

Safety Plan – Minimum criteria is met when Safety Plan meets the requirements 2.4.3.1.1 outlined in Basic SOW Section 3.3 and Appendix C for MACC III.

Quality Control Plan (QCP) – Minimum criteria is met when QCP meets the 2.4.3.1.2 requirements outlined in Basic SOW Section 3.1 and IAW UFGS 01 45 00; and the QCP complies with the applicable UFGS specification; and includes the detail how the project will be managed including: interim status reports, remediation and change management procedures to meet and maintain schedule milestones; and includes in detail the testing necessary for material control; and includes how the mechanical systems will be commissioned.

Demolition Plan – Minimum criteria is met when demolition plan provides a detailed 2.4.3.1.3 approach and schedule that meets all requirements identified in Seed Project SOW Section 2.1 and UFC 02 41 00; and the plan includes how Paint Booth 1 operational time will be optimized; and the plan includes removal procedures including the route of material removal considering airfield restrictions on the east side and salvage; and the plan includes a section on sanding booth deconstruction; and the deconstruction section includes in detail how the sanding booth will be disassembled to minimize damage and optimize reassembly; and the demolition plan includes any analysis and procedures necessary to assure the existing building structure is not compromised;

and demolition plan includes how dust control for personnel and networking equipment will be accomplished.

Architectural Plan – Minimum criteria is met when detailed Architectural Plan is 2.4.3.1.4 submitted that conforms to American Barrier Act (ABA) accessibility and meets all other requirements IAW Seed Project SOW Section 2.2. The Architectural Plan must include a pdf concept drawing. The concept drawing, notes included, must indicate

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

minimum ABA slopes, ABA door openings, ABA handicap stalls including 5'-0 dia turning radii in order to show fundamental understanding of ABA requirements.

Security Plan - Minimum criteria is met when the Security Plan provides a detailed 2.4.3.1.5 approach that meets all requirements specified in the Seed Project SOW Section 2.5.

Electrical Plan - Minimum criteria is met when the Electrical Plan provides a detailed 2.4.3.1.6 description of how each of the Main Distribution Panels will be modified and the requirements, including equipment and areas, identified in the Seed Project SOW Section 2.3. Each One Line Diagram shall include wire and conduit sizing between the Main Distribution Panels and the new sub-panels shown in Seed Project SOW Addendum 2, E101.

Mechanical Systems Plan - Minimum criteria is met when mechanical plan provides 2.4.3.1.7 a detailed approach that meets all requirements identified in the Seed project SOW, including all new Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), breathing air and shop air, IAW the requirements in the Seed Project SOW Section 2.4

Concrete Structural Design - Minimum criteria is met when concrete structural 2.4.3.1.8 design meets all requirements identified in Seed Project SOW paragraph 2.1.1; and design(s) include accurate footing or foundation and floor structural calculations and detailed sketches prepared by a Professional Structural Engineer who is identified on the design documents along with their state of licensure; and design(s) include complete calculations and detailed sketches that clearly illustrate reinforcing size, placement, dimensions, and pertinent foundation information.

Communications Design Plan - Minimum criteria is met when Communications 2.4.3.1.9

Design Plan demonstrates how the contactor will meet requirements identified in Seed Project SOW Section 2.6; and provides proof of Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD) certification; and the Communications Design Plan includes CER and TER concept sketches; and a description of protection for network equipment throughout construction; and identifies and shows documentation the person acting as the Building Industry Consulting Service International (BICSI) certified technician IAW the Seed Project SOW Section 2.6. Certification documentation must be provided.

Fire Protection Basis of Design - Minimum criteria is met when a Basis of Design for 2.4.3.1.10

Fire Protection is prepared by a registered Professional Engineer licensed to practice Fire Protection engineering and who is identified on the Basis of Design documents along with their state of licensure; and the Basis of Design includes all major subsystems required to meet Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-600-1, Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 02-15, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) with Air Force Civil Engineering Center (AFCEC) interim guidance taking precedence, ref.

Seed Project SOW Section 2.7.

2.4.3.2 Sub-factor Two: Architect-Engineer (A-E) Qualifications:

Sub-factor Two minimum acceptability is met when the submittal clearly demonstrates:

2.4.3.3 Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes one example of a past project that is contractually complete and less than five (5) years old from the issue date of the RFP signed and stamped by a licensed Professional Electrical Engineer, that demonstrates the capability to perform analysis of short circuit, coordination, arc flash and voltage drop calculations similar in scope in regards to complexity, cost, and size of the Seed Project.

2.4.3.4 Minimum criteria is met when the proposal demonstrates that the team possesses licensed individual(s) with a minimum of five years design experience in each of the disciplines of Architectural, Civil, Structural, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering. Standard Forms (SF) 330, Section J Attachment 3 will be evaluated to ensure the experience and professional requirements.

2.4.3.5 Minimum criteria is met when the proposal demonstrates that the team possesses at least one

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional (AP) and has provided an example of at least one past project that is contractually complete and less than five

(5) years old from the issue date of the RFP that has achieved LEED AP Silver Certification IAW Basic SOW paragraph 1.3.1.3. and Section 2.2.

2.4.3.6 Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes an example of a past project that is contractually complete and less than five (5) years old from the issue date of the RFP, similar in scope with regards to complexity, price, and size of the Seed Project; and, the example past project is formatted as shown in Example Project Template as found on Page 15 of Section L

ITO.

2.4.3.7 Minimum criteria is met when the Fire Protection Engineering Plan demonstrates compliance and is IAW AFI 32-10141, Page 19, Attachment 3, and also the following:

Technical qualifications for installing a Fire Alarm System IAW UFC 3-600-01 2.4.3.7.1 paragraph 5-1.1.

Additional qualifications for combined fire alarm/mass notification systems IAW 2.4.3.7.2

UFC 4-021-01, paragraphs 3-2.1.

Technical qualifications for the design of High Expansion Foam Systems in hangars 2.4.3.7.3 IAW Engineering Technical Letter 02-15, section A1.6.

Engineering services IAW UFC 4-021-01, paragraph 4-6.1.2. 2.4.3.7.4

2.4.4 Sub-factor Three: Contractor Requirements:

Sub-factor Three acceptability is met when the submittal clearly demonstrates:

2.4.4.1 Minimum criteria is met when proposal includes a signed partnership agreement with an established A-E firm to meet requirements IAW basic SOW 1.1.1.

2.4.4.2 Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes no more than two example projects that were successfully completed demonstrating design-build experience as a Prime Contractor per the requirements in Section L, paragraph 5.5.1.2 in one of two ways: 1) on a US military installation or 2) on commercial or municipal aviation infrastructure within airport secured areas or industrial production facilities. The combined contractual dollar value of the experience must total at least $2.5M. If two projects are submitted, the lesser of the two must not be less than $500K. A single industrial project on a US military installation of at least $2.5M will meet both requirements. Submission of multiple examples will not be considered any more favorable than a single project submission. The example projects must be contractually complete and less than five (5) years old from the issue date of the RFP.

2.4.4.3 Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes a maximum of three example projects documenting the capability to design and build projects involving Architectural, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Fire Suppression, Structural, Security and Communication construction disciplines per the requirements in Section L, Paragraph 5.5.1.3. It is recognized by the Government that a single project may not capture all required disciplines above. As a result, up to three projects may be used to provide this documentation. Submission of multiple examples will not be considered any more favorable than a single project submission. The example projects must be contractually complete and less than five (5) years old from the issue date of the RFP.

2.4.4.4 Minimum criteria is met when the Offeror has provided Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and

Days Away, Restricted and/or Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates are equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 2362.

2.4.4.5 Minimum criteria is met when the proposal includes a prequalification letter from an A.M. Best “A” rated surety (not a bonding agent) verifying bonding relationship demonstrating the capability to obtain a minimum bond amount of $5 Million per project and $20 Million aggregate for MACC III.

2.5 Volume III - Past Performance:

2.5.1 Past performance information will be gathered from Offeror submissions, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered to assess how well Offeror performed on past contracts.

2.5.1.1 Recency is defined as performance less than (3) three years old from the issue date of the

RFP. The Government will not consider performance on contracts or task orders where performance was concluded more than (3) three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.5.1.2 Relevancy is defined as performance of efforts involving construction that are similar or greater in scope and magnitude that involves similar types and complexities of construction described in this RFP. For Government contracts, any relevant Government contract where the Offeror was the Prime Contractor will be considered and reviewed to determine past performance history. For joint ventures, any relevant Government contract where Offeror(s) completed previous joint ventures with the same partner will be considered and reviewed to determine past performance history. If this is a first time joint venture, each Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated (maximum of three each) will be considered and reviewed to determine past performance history.

2.5.2 Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below).

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

2.6 Volume IV - Contract Documentation:

2.6.1 This volume will be reviewed for completeness; and proposal includes a signed copy of the

Model Contract, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by Section L, paragraph 7 “Contract Documentation”. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or award.

2.6.2 The Offeror has provided an attendance list of up to three individuals (by position title and name) that will attend the mandatory Post Award Conference at Hill Air Force Base (AFB), that will serve to fulfill the contract’s “minimum guarantee amount.”

2.6.3 The proposal contains evidence of adequate financial resources such as a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

2.6.4 The proposal contains evidence that the Offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting IAW FAR 52.219-14.

3 DISCUSSIONS:

3.1 It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that

Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

4 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

4.1 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 sub-factors. 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.

2.5.2 Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.