Section_M_Draft.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PAVING INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ)

SOURCE SELECTION

1. BASIC CONTRACT AWARD

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 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 04 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (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 in accordance with the 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 up to three contract(s) for the Paving IDIQ program.

However, the Government reserves the right to make more or no award(s) at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest.

In addition to the basic Paving IDIQ contract award, the Government intends to issue a single task order (TO) for the “Seed” Project to the LPTA 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 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 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.

1.4 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. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions, within 7 days of solicitation issuance, and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

2. 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. Evaluations will cease when the Government has an adequate number of technically acceptable proposals with an acceptable past performance rating.

Factor 1: Price

Factor 2: Technical Acceptability

Subfactor 1: “Seed” Project – Reconstruct 6th Street (Southgate Avenue to Arsenal Road) Subfactor 2: Key Personnel Subfactor 3: Bonding

Factor 3: Past Performance

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).

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 Factor:

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 follows:

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

“Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown” worksheet, Section XX, or RSMeans based worksheet, 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.

2.3.4.1 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 “Labor Rate Matrix,” Section XX. 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 TO proposals under this contract.

2.4 Volume II - Technical Acceptability Factor:

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 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, 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.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: “Seed” Project – Reconstruct 6th Street (Southgate Avenue to Aresnal Road)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s capability of performing both, asphalt and concrete paving, for executing the “Seed” Project SOW with emphasis on the following elements:

• proposed detail drawings and plans including traffic control and phasing plan, in accordance with (IAW) “Seed” SOW and Basic SOW Section 7

• construction performance schedule IAW “Seed” SOW and Basic SOW Section 13

• material submittals to include: asphalt, concrete, road base, stable sub-grade material, reinforcing steel, paint, storm drain catch basins, reinforced concrete pipe, epoxy pipe grout, and stailization fabric IAW “Seed” SOW and Basic SOW Section 8

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates evidence of sound, feasible, and effective approach; conforms with all applicable requirements of the “Seed” Project SOW and Basic SOW; and their team (including subcontractors, as applicable) possesses full capability for executing the “Seed” SOW with a low risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 2: Key Personnel

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s qualification requirements and responsibilities (in resume format), for each person, including a copy of the letter signed by an authorized official of the offeror’s firm describing the responsibilities and delegates sufficient authorities to adequately perform the funcitons, as applicable in the Basic SOW Section 5.1.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates evidence of conformance to all applicable requirements of the Basic SOW and “Seed” Project SOW for successful contract performance.

Subfactor 3: Bonding

Description: This subfactor evaluates the bonding capability of the offeror’s requiring a minimum of $5 million blanket bond IAW DFARS Clause 252.288-7004. 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 clearly demonstrates evidence of the bond mimimum requirement and bonding surety company rating conforms to the subfactor description.

2.5 Volume III - Past Performance Factor:

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

2.5.1 Ratings – The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 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.

2.5.2 Evaluation Process – The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.5.2.1 Recency Assessment – An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.5.2.2 Relevancy Assessment – The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to contract/subcontract management and performance effort involving similar scope and maginture of effort and complexities as this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

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.”

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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) 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.