Attachment_13_-_SABER_Section_M_7March2016_Rev1_ApprovedChanges.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION OF BASE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS (SABER)

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 FAR Site, 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 to approximately three contractors for the SABER program. 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 awardees for the basic contract. 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 conduct 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 SUBFACTORS:

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

Factor 1 – Price

Factor 2 – Technical Acceptability (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Sub-factor One – Seed Project Sub-factor Two – Subcontractor Utilization Plan Sub-factor Three – Management Plan

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 the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

In the event that a TEP cannot be calculated, the Government may elect to set the Offeror aside and continue evaluating other Offerors with TEPs that can be calculated as detailed below, or to continue on with evaluations as detailed below without a TEP being calculated for the Offeror.

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:

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

2.2.1.3.2 Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions. The contracting officer 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:

2.3.4.1 The sum of the Seed Project total proposed price as contained in the “Construction Cost

Estimate Breakdown” worksheet, Section J Attachment 14 combined with the Not to Exceed (NTE) rates (see paragraph below). Please note that the Seed Project total proposed price will be contractually binding and may be awarded at the Government’s sole discretion.

2.3.4.2 The sum of the notional hours and the Offeror’s proposed NTE rates for professional labor categories (not subject to the Construction Wage Rate Requirements Statute – formerly Davis-Bacon Act), as contained in the “Rate Worksheet,” Section J, Attachment

15. 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 and assign 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, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

2.4.3 Sub-factor One: Seed Project:

Sub-factor One - Minimum criteria is met when in compliance with all of the following:

2.4.3.1 Material submittals – Minimum criteria is met when material submittals as outlined in

Seed Project SOW Section 2.1 are provided on AF IMT 3000 that identify specific equipment that will be used to meet requirement as outlined in Seed Project SOW and includes a narrative describing how the materials selected meets all requirements identified in the Seed Project SOW.

2.4.3.2 Asbestos removal – Minimum criteria is met when the narrative describing the asbestos removal approach provides a detailed description that meets all requirements identified in the Basic SOW Section 01 57 20.04 Part 3.5.1.1 [all requirements identified by the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) to include Utah DAQ rule R307-801, OSHA 29 CFR 1926.1101 and/or 29 CFR 1910.1001 and EPA 40 CFR Part 61, sub part M] and Seed Project SOW Section 3.1.

2.4.3.3 Mechanical – Minimum criteria is met when the narrative describing the Mechanical approach provides a detailed description that meets all requirements identified in Seed Project SOW Section 3.2.

2.4.3.4 Plumbing – Minimum criteria is met when the narrative describing the Plumbing

Project SOW Section 3.3.

2.4.3.5 Electrical – Minimum criteria is met when the narrative describing the Electrical

Project SOW Section 3.4.

2.4.3.6 Fire Alarm – Minimum criteria is met when the narrative describing the Fire Alarm

Rating

Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Project SOW Section 3.7 and submittals are provided as per Seed Project SOW Section 2.1.

2.4.4 Sub-factor Two: Subcontractor Utilization Plan:

Sub-factor Two - Minimum criteria is met when the Subcontractor Utilization Plan narrative provides a detailed approach that meets the requirements in Basic SOW Section 01 00 00 Part 1.15, regarding management of subcontractors, establishment and utilization of subcontractor pools, and ability to obtain additional subcontractor resources to meet performance and schedule requirements.

2.4.5 Sub-factor Three: Management Plan:

Sub-factor Three – Minimum criteria is met when the Management Plan provides a detailed approach that meets the requirements in Basic SOW Section 01 31 01 Part 1.3 and includes resumes, licenses and certifications showing requirements are met IAW Basic SOW Section 01 31 01 Part 1.1 for key personnel.

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 this

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.

2.5.1.3 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 (SF 1442), 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, if one is established, 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). Attendance and submission of Quality Control Plan and Safety Plan is mandatory and 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. In addition, the selection process will be to evaluate offers received from 8(a) firms located within Utah or 8(a) construction firms outside of Utah that have an approved bona fide office in Utah at the time of bid submittals, and the assigned North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code. Refer to Attachment 16 for Bona Fide Office Requirements instructions. All other 8(a) participants are ineligible to submit offers.

2.6.5 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) Code (2) 23 found at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_10292015.htm .

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, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct 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.

Rating