Attachment 16 - SABER Section M.pdf

SABER: Section M

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION BASE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS

(SABER)

XX January 2021

Table of Contents

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

1.2 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1.1 Initial Price Evaluation

2.1.2 Technical and Past Performance Evaluation

3.0 VOLUME I - FACTOR ONE - PRICE FACTOR

3.1 COMPLETENESS

3.2 REASONABLENESS

3.3 BALANCE

3.4 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

3.4.1 Service Contract Labor Standards Wage Determination

3.4.2 Construction Wage Rate Requirements Wage Determinations

3.4.3 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

3.5 SEED PROJECT PRICING

4.0 VOLUME II - FACTOR TWO - TECHNICAL FACTOR

4.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

4.2 SUBFACTOR 1: SEED PROJECT

4.2.1 Material

4.2.2 Asbestos Removal

4.2.3 Demolition

4.2.4 Architectural

4.2.5 Electrical

4.2.6 Plumbing

4.2.7 Mechanical

4.2.8 DDC Controls

4.2.9 Communications Wiring

4.2.10 Fire Suppression

4.3 SUBFACTOR 2: SUBCONTRACTOR UTILIZATION PLAN

4.4 SUBFACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT PLAN

4.5 SUBFACTOR 4: QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

5.0 VOLUME III - FACTOR THREE - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

5.1 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

5.2 RECENCY

5.3 RELEVANCY

6.0 VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

6.1 ABILITY TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES

6.2 LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING

6.3 TOTAL CASE INCIDENT RATE AND DAYS AWAY, RESTRICTED AND TRANSFERRED RATES

6.4 BONA FIDE OFFICE

7.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

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. These regulations are available electronically at http://www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 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 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.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award approximately three contracts for the SABER contract. However, the Government reserves the right to award fewer or more total contracts—or no contract at all—if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that it is in the Government’s best interest considering the expected volume of work over the period of the contract, available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, the quality of proposals and prices submitted, and the availability of best-value proposals following completion of evaluations of the proposals received.

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. 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.

1.2 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, as set forth in the solicitation, is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

2.0 Evaluation Criteria for Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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

Factor One – Price

Factor Two – Technical

Subfactor One – Seed Project

Subfactor Two – Subcontractor Utilization Plan

Subfactor Three – Management Plan

Subfactor Four – Quality Assurance Plan

Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1 Evaluation Methodology

2.1.1 Initial Price Evaluation

An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and Section 3.0 below. Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a 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 described below without a TEP being calculated for the offeror.

2.1.2 Technical and Past Performance Evaluation

Technical and past performance evaluation will be performed starting with the lowest priced offeror(s).

Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set. If a high number of proposals are received, the Government may limit the competitive range to a reasonable number of the lowest priced offerors for efficiency.

2.1.2.1 Technically Acceptable Offerors

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 offeror(s) without discussions.

2.1.2.2 Technically Unacceptable Offerors

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

Government may:

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

b) Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions IAW

FAR 15.306.

2.1.2.3 Higher Priced Offerors

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. It is also possible that offeror(s) may not be considered for award if the TEP cannot be calculated.

3.0 Volume I - Factor One - Price Factor

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are:

1) Completeness

2) Reasonableness

3) Balance

4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

3.1 Completeness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for compliance with Section L and all other portions of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The offeror shall ensure that they have provided all requested pricing information.

3.2 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 for price reasonableness.

3.3 Balance

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The

Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.4 Total Evaluated Price

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed rates applied to notional hours for all years for the base period and options (including FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract). To determine the price for the period covered by FAR 52.217-9, the Government will include in the TEP a price for the option period. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government has determined that the elements of the notional formula WILL NOT be disclosed to offerors. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; however, all proposed rates are contractually binding as

Not-to-Exceed prices for labor, surge, and overtime issuance of task orders.

3.4.1 Service Contract Labor Standards Wage Determination

The rates submitted in a Section J Attachment 3 will also be evaluated to ensure they meet or exceed the rates in the applicable Service Contract

Labor Standards Wage Determination.

3.4.2 Construction Wage Rate Requirements Wage Determinations

The rates proposed for the various Wage Determinations (Section J

Attachment 34-39) will also be evaluated to ensure they meet or exceed the rates in the applicable Construction Wage Rate Requirements Wage

Determinations.

3.4.3 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

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.

3.5 Seed Project Pricing

The pricing submitted on the Seed Project Pricing Matrix will not be calculated as part of the TEP, but rather will be utilized in determining the lowest price offeror from the pool of the 3 awardees that are awarded contracts for the SABER requirement. Of that pool the lowest priced offeror will be awarded the Seed

Project.

4.0 Volume II - Factor Two - Technical Factor

The Technical Volume will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The offeror’s Technical Volume 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. The Technical

Volume shall explain how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements.

The Technical Volume shall NOT simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements in the PWS. The offeror’s proposal shall NOT merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

The offeror’s approach shall address all requirements IAW the following Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the PWS unless otherwise noted.

4.1 Technical Evaluation Ratings

The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” to each individual subfactor within Factor Two. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single subfactor is rated “Unacceptable.” Technical subfactors will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings identified in

Table 4.1, Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method, which is IAW DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1:

Table 4.1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating

Description

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

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.

4.2 Subfactor 1: Seed Project

The Offeror’s response to this subfactor is technically acceptable when it contains a detailed narrative of their approach to address each of the following elements, and their response meets the specified, required information outlined for each element.

4.2.1 Material

This element is technically acceptable when material submittals as outlined in Seed Project SOW Section 2.1 are provided on AF IMT 3000 that clearly identifies specific equipment that will be used to meet requirement as outlined in Seed Project SOW and includes a detailed narrative that demonstrates how the materials selected meets all requirements identified in the Seed Project SOW.

4.2.2 Asbestos Removal

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative describing asbestos removal provides a detailed approach to meet all requirements material submittals as outlined in Basic SOW 44.6 [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.

4.2.3 Demolition

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative provides a detailed approach and methodologies to complete all of the requirements

IAW Seed Project SOW 3.2.

4.2.4 Architectural

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative provides a detailed approach and methodologies to complete all of the requirements

IAW Seed Project SOW 3.3.

4.2.5 Electrical

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative provides a detailed approach and methodologies to complete all of the requirements

IAW Seed Project SOW 3.4.

4.2.6 Plumbing

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative provides a detailed approach and methodologies to complete all of the requirements

IAW Seed Project SOW 3.5.

4.2.7 Mechanical

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative provides a detailed approach and methodologies to complete all of the requirements

IAW Seed Project SOW 3.6.

4.2.8 DDC Controls

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative provides a detailed approach and methodologies to complete all of the requirements

IAW Seed Project SOW 3.7.

4.2.9 Communications Wiring

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative provides a detailed approach and methodologies to complete all of the requirements

IAW Seed Project SOW 3.8.

4.2.10 Fire Suppression

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative provides a detailed approach and methodologies to complete all of the requirements

IAW Seed Project SOW 3.9.

4.3 Subfactor 2: Subcontractor Utilization Plan

This subfactor will be evaluated to ensure that the proposal includes a subcontractor utilization plan that meets the requirements to manage, establish, and obtain subcontractor pools.

The plan is acceptable when it provides sufficient methodologies, rational, and evidence to demonstrate the following:

1) How the offeror will meet the requirements in Basic SOW sections 4.6 and

6.

2) Proposed management of subcontractors, establishment and utilization of subcontractor pools, and ability to obtain additional resources to meet performance and schedule requirements

3) How prime contractor intends to cultivate and utilize pool of subcontractors in order to provide best value on all task orders

4.4 Subfactor 3: Management Plan

This subfactor will be evaluated to ensure that the proposal includes a management plan that meets the requirements in Basic SOW section 5.

The plan is acceptable when it provides sufficient methodologies, rational, and evidence to demonstrate compliance with requirements in Basic SOW Section 5 and resumes, licenses, and certifications to fulfill key personnel identified in Basic

SOW Sections 4.1 thru 4.5.

4.5 Subfactor 4: Quality Control Plan

This subfactor will be evaluated to ensure that the proposal includes a quality control plan that meets the requirements to ensure that quality control will be maintained on all projects.

The plan is acceptable when it provides sufficient methodologies, rational, and evidence to demonstrate how the offeror will meet the requirements in Basic SOW

Section 8 and includes all contents identified in Basic SOW Section 8.2.

5.0 Volume III - Factor Three - Past Performance Factor

Past performance information will be gathered from, but not limited to, Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reports

System (CPARS), and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered. If the offeror chooses to include subcontractor performance, the offeror shall include contract number and prime contractor. Offeror may use past performance of subcontractor to satisfy recent and relevant past performance. If this is a first time joint venture, each party of the joint venture must provide a list of past relevant contracts (maximum of three). Any past performance records with an overall rating of Unsatisfactory or Marginal will result in a rating of unacceptable for the Past Performance Factor and disqualification for award.

5.1 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings identified in Table 5.3, Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

Table 5.3: 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.

Note1: 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 or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

5.2 Recency

Recency is defined as performance within the last three years from the date of the issuance of the solicitation. The Government will not consider performance on contracts where performance was concluded more than three years prior to the solicitation issue date or contracts awarded. The contract/task order in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance if any part of the contract performance falls within the three year timeframe.

5.3 Relevancy

Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same type(s) of services described in the RFP, PWS, Section L, and Section M. The offeror shall address any performance problems/issues as instructed in Section L and explain the corrective action taken or current status.

6.0 Volume IV – Contract Documentation

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required in Section L

Instruction to Offerors. An incomplete package may be may excluded the offeror from competition.

6.1 Ability to Obtain Adequate Financial Resources

The proposal shall contain evidence of adequate financial resources. Acceptable evidence normally consists of 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.

6.2 Limitations on Subcontracting

The proposal shall contain documentation that demonstrates or explains how the prime contractor shall meet the requirements IAW FAR 52.219-14.

6.3 Total Case Incident Rate and Days Away, Restricted and Transferred Rates

Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and 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 North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 236220. For offerors that do not possess three years of consecutive recording data, submit this information for the time period you do possess. Other comparable data from a recognized agency, such as workers compensation, insurance rates, etc., for the same time period is also acceptable.

6.4 Bona Fide Office

The proposal shall contain evidence of a bona fide place of business within the area, by including a determination made from the Small Business Administration

(SBA) for the offeror.

7.0 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 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.