Section_M_13_June_2017.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PAVING INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ)

SOURCE SELECTION

BASIC CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Guidance:

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), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 1 Apr 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 dated 27 Jan 2017. These regulations are available electronically at 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, as supplemented, 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) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, 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 three (3) basic contract(s) for the Paving IDIQ program. However, the Government reserves the right to issue more, less, or no award(s) at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. The SSA will consider the Government's expected volume of work, available funding, adequate competition, and the availability of best value proposals. In addition to the basic Paving IDIQ contract award, the Government intends to award one (1) task order (TO) for the “Seed” Project to the LPTA offeror for the “Seed” Project within the pool of awardees that receive a 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 Section 2.3.4 below). However, issuance of the Seed Project TO is at the sole discretion of the Government, as 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 any costs incurred by offeror(s).

1.3 Discussions:

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 Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.3.1 If a proposal receives an “unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range. If an offeror’s proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions to that offeror’s proposal shall be accepted or considered.

1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions:

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 evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide comprehensive supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to deny any exception(s). Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors. Offerors will be ranked by TEP. If a TEP cannot be calculated, the offeror may be precluded from further evaluation. Evaluations will cease when the Government has an adequate number of technically acceptable proposals based on TEP. Relative Importance of Factors: all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Technical Acceptability Subfactor 1: “Seed” Project Subfactor 2: Key Personnel Subfactor 3: Bonding

2.2 Evaluation Methodology:

All factors may be evaluated in parallel. The following approach will be utilized to evaluate proposals

2.2.1 Step 1: Evaluate Factor 1, Price, for all offerors including option prices.

2.2.2 Step 2: Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.2.3 Step 3: Evaluate Factor 2, Technical Acceptability.

2.2.4 Step 4: Award will be made to the offeror(s) with the lowest evaluated TEP meeting the acceptable rating for the non-price factors, and who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104.

2.2.4.1 Evaluation Notices, during discussions, may be submitted during the evaluation period, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. However, initial proposal should include best terms as there may not be an opportunity to revise proposals.

2.2.4.2 If found unacceptable, outside the competitive range, or otherwise eliminated from the competition at any point of the evaluation period, a notification shall be submitted to the unsuccessful offeror.

2.2.4.3 Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical acceptability. It is possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are technically unacceptable.

2.2.4.4 Technical 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. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

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 Government.

2.3.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following:

2.3.4.1 The “Seed” Project total proposed price as contained in the Pricing Matrix workbook. 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 Notional hours multipled by proposed NTE labor rates. Notional hours will be equally applied to all offerors. The notional hours will not be disclosed to offerors. Notional hours are for evaluation purposes only, however the rates proposed are contractually binding as NTE rates for future task order proposals.

2.3.5 If at any time during the evaluation the Government finds a technical subfactor to be unacceptable, the evaluation of pricing will reflect, "Not Determined" for Reasonableness, and Balance due to the offeror's price not reflecting an acceptable technical approach. The Government may also decline to consider the offeror's TEP for purposes of competitive range or award if the offeror has any unacceptable rating.

2.4 Volume II - Technical Acceptability

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) required in Section L – Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as unacceptable will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, the proposal unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. The offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: “Seed” Project Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s capability of performing both, asphalt and concrete construction work. The offeror shall provide information that describes and clearly demonstrates evidence of a sound and effective approach as to how they propose to accomplish the “Seed” Project, asphalt and concrete construction work IAW the “Seed” Project SOW paragraph 1.9, and shall include the following documentation, for executing the “Seed” Project SOW paragraph 1.9, and shall include the following documentation:

a) Detailed Drawings and Plans including Traffic Control and Phasing Plan IAW “Seed” Project SOW paragraph 3.2 and Basic SOW paragraph 7.

b) Construction performance schedule IAW “Seed” SOW paragraph 1.11 and Basic SOW paragraph 13.

c) Material Submittals IAW “Seed” Project SOW paragraph 1.4 and Basic SOW paragraph 8.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates evidence of sound, feasible, and effective approach; conforms with all requirements of the “Seed” Project SOW and Basic SOW, as referenced in the paragraphs above; has the capability for executing the “Seed” SOW within the established requirements.

Subfactor 2: Key Personnel Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s key personnel qualifications IAW Basic SOW paragraph 5.1 that includes a position description for all key personnel with required minimum qualifications, and includes a complete organizational chart. Offeror shall provide a plan identifying how they will ensure and maintain their employees and subcontractors have current and valid professional certifications and licenses throughout the life of the contract. This plan shall include resumes, licenses, and certifications for the following key personnel:

a) Project/Contract Manager (PM/CM)

b) Project Superintendent (PS)

c) Quality Control Officer (QC)

d) Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO)

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates evidence of conformance to all applicable requirements of the Basic SOW paragraph 5.1 for successful contract performance and provides a plan identifying how the offeror will ensure and maintain their employees and subcontractors have current and valid professional certifications and licenses throughout the life of the contract.

Subfactor 3: Bonding Description: This subfactor evaluates the bonding capability of the offeror, the offeror shall provide a bid guarantee in the amount of 20 Percent (20%) of the bid price IAW FAR Clause 52.228-1 for the “Seed” project, and shall provide evidence of a minimum of $5 million blanket Performance and Payment bond IAW DFARS Clause 252.228-7004 for the basic Paving IDIQ and associated TOs. The bond must be backed by a bonding surety with an A.M Best company rating of at least “A”.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates evidence of the bond minimum requirement and the bonding surety company rating conforms to the above clauses.

2.5 Volume III – Contract Documentation

2.5.1 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 6 “Contract Documentation.” An incomplete package may exclude an offeror from the competitive range, if one is established, and/or award.

2.5.1.1 Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and/or Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates shall be 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) 237 found at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh.htm. An offeror that does not possess established TCIR and DART rates provides consecutive recording data for the time period they did possess and provides a document with an explanation regarding why the offeror did not have TCIR and DART rates and how the recording data is comparable to TCIR and DART rates.