Atch 4 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award 220706.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION PROCESS

M1.1 Introduction. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s proposals for the PAVING contracts. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria set forth below. This is a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 212 and 215, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5312 and 5315, and Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 Class Deviation 2018-O0006. The Government intends to make multiple prime contract awards under this solicitation.

M1.2 Evaluation. Volume I – Administrative and Responsibility Material criteria will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Volume II – Factor 1, IDIQ Management will have an evaluation rating of Acceptable/Unacceptable. Volume III – Factor 2, Past Performance will be evaluated for recency, quality of services and include a rating for relevancy and be assigned an overall level rating. Prime contracts will be awarded to all offerors that receive a “Pass” for Administrative and Responsibility Material criteria, receive an “Acceptable” rating for Factor 1 – IDIQ Management, and receive an “Acceptable” rating in Factor 2 – Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate all proposals received against IDIQ Management and Past Performance in accordance with Table M.1. Order of Importance: Administrative and Responsibility Material criteria, and Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

Table M.1

Volume Factor Title Evaluation Rating

I Administrative and Responsibility Material Pass/Fail

II Factor 1 IDIQ Management Acceptable/Unacceptable

III Factor 2 Past Performance Proposal Acceptable/Unacceptable

M1.3 Eligibility. In order to be eligible for award, a proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and the terms and conditions set forth in this solicitation; and the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror’s proposal being considered unacceptable.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR VOLUMES/FACTORS

M2.1 Volume I – Administrative and Responsibility Material: The Government will evaluate Volume I for completeness and compliance with instructions. This Volume shall be rated on a Pass/Fail basis.

M2.1.1 Financial Capacity. The offeror shall provide proof of a line of credit for at least $200,000.00 to ensure they are financially capable. Offerors who fail this requirement will fail the overall Volume I.

M2.1.2 Organizational Conflict of Interests. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure adequate information to avoid and/or mitigate current OCI is provided. In order to evaluate actual or potential OCI, the Government will review the OCI Disclosure Forms submitted by the offeror as well as ongoing and in-process contracts within AFMC.

Offerors who fail this requirement will fail the overall Volume I.

M2.1.3 Contract Forms and Certifications. The Offeror completed all required signatures and contract clauses, and all representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and statements in the SAM.gov or submits the Section K representation, certification, acknowledgement or statement. Offerors who fail this requirement will fail the overall Volume I.

M2.1.4 Bid, Performance and Payment Bonds. The offeror submitted a prequalification letter from an A.M. Best “A” rated surety (not a bonding agent), that verifies offeror’s bonding relationship and shows a minimum bond capacity of $3M aggregate for PAVING TOs. Additional bonding will be required if active PAVING projects exceed $3M.

Performance and Payment Bonds will be required IAW FAR Clause 52.228-15 and due no later than 10 days after award notification. Offerors who fail this requirement will fail the overall Volume I.

M2.1.5 Bonafide Place of Business. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure it contains evidence of a bonafide place of business within the designated area. Offerors who fail this requirement will fail the overall Volume I.

M2.1.6 Contractor Team Arrangement. If utilizing a Contractor Team Arrangement, the offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure it contains a copy of the approved arrangement, outlining the roles and responsibilities of both partners. Offerors who fail this requirement will fail the overall Volume I.

M2.2 Volume II – Factor 1, IDIQ Management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal and apply a Technical rating for Factor 1 IAW Section M Table M2.2. Evaluation of proposals will focus on the offeror’s ability and approach to meet and understand the PAVING SOW requirements. Note that if an offeror’s proposal does not meet a Government requirement, it will result in an Unacceptable proposal. Offerors that simply restate the Government’s requirement will be rated Unacceptable. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach and methodology manages, resources, and executes the full range of PAVING requirements.

Table M2.2

Technical Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation. Proposal is un-awardable.

M2.2.1 Program Management. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s overall Program Management Plan (PMP) demonstrates a sound, practical methodology for satisfying the requirements stated in the solicitation. The assessment will focus on the offeror’s ability to ensure all resources are available to successfully execute PAVING requirements. If the offeror fails to meet a subsection of Factor 1, the offeror will receive an overall rating of unacceptable for Factor 1.

M2.2.1.1 Capabilities. The Government will evaluate the capabilities of the offeror (including teaming partners and subcontractors) in providing support of similar scope and size, to similar organizations. The Government will evaluate the the offeror’s ability in accomplishing the overall mission. The Government will evaluate the offerors proposal to ensure that the offeror’s team covers ALL required skill-levels, capabilities, and experience as required to complete TO requirements identified by the SOW scope of work. Contractor shall provide all required licenses/certifications identified in L3.2.1.1 for Government review.

M2.2.1.2 Management Approach/Organization. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s overall management approach and structure to ensure it satisfies the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will determine if the proposed approach and structure indicates an understanding of the requirements/imperatives. The Government will also evaluate to ensure that the proposed team collectively demonstrates the expertise required to perform all contract and subsequent TO requirements. The Government will evaluate if the offeror’s management of subcontracts assumes the full burden of oversight and correction to effectively manage subcontractors; if the processes assign subcontractors work, and integrate subcontractors; if their processes account for first tier subcontractor, sub-contract dollars expended, and provides for on-site task leaders to coordinate sub-contractor efforts on task orders. A clearly understandable approach and structure that applies tangible resources and clear concepts, and ensures connectivity to client and to corporate resources, will demonstrate compliance and understanding of SOW requirements. The government will evaluate the lines of communication and control by which execution issues are presented, and responses or corrective actions are provided. Flat lines of communication that enable rapid information flow to decision makers will demonstrate compliance and understanding. The government will evaluate if the offeror applies management resources to adequately oversee a geographically dispersed workforce, multiple task orders and multiple subcontractors. Additionally, descriptions that include complete and clear delineation of all required management support functions (i.e. security, contract management, etc.), their locations and lines of responsibility, supervision, authority and decision making, will demonstrate understanding of the contract and subsequent TO requirements.

M2.2.1.3 Key Contractor Personnel: The Government will evaluate the proposed personnel to ensure it complies with qualification requirements in the SOW. If the offeror’s personnel do not comply with the requirements in the SOW, the contractor is automatically rated as unacceptable for Factor 1.

M2.2.1.4 Quality Control/Process. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing sound business processes for monitoring contract performance IAW the requirements in the SOW. The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s plan to address problem areas quickly to ensure contract performance requirements are met. An approach that does not adequately addresses quality control processes in a manner that ensure compliance with all contract requirements, does not meet the minimum criteria standards of this subsection, and the proposal will automatically be rated as unacceptable for Factor 1.

M2.3 Volume III – Factor 2: Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing the services delineated in the PAVING SOW. A quality assessment will be conducted at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the PAVING requirements. The Government will not evaluate personal references.

M2.3.1 The past performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by summary, information sheets, interviews, and assessments available through the Past Performance Retrieval System; Subcontractor Consent Letter/Client Authorization Letter are required to be submitted with the past performance volume. If the required letters are not submitted, the past performance evaluation will not take place and the offeror proposal will be ineligible for award. The Government is not limited to these resources.

M2.3.2 The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the required outlined in the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the past performance of the efforts that meet the recency and relevancy requirements in Section L, para L4.5 and Table L.4, in order to determine the Government’s overall expectation in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort using the ratings as described in Section M Table M2.3.

Table M.2.3 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.

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.”

M2.3.2.1. In order for an offeror to obtain an overall assessment rating of “Relevant” on each PPI sheet, the offeror must obtain a minimum of 4 of the 7 relevancy criteria listed in Attachment 6 – Paving Past Performance Relevancy Baseline.

M2.3.2.2. In order for an offeror to obtain an overall assessment rating of “Acceptable” for Volume III – Factor 2: Past Performance, the offeror must obtain a minimum of 2 PPI sheets with an overall assessment rating of “Relevant”.

M2.3.3. Any past performance records (CPARS/FAPIIS) with an overall rating of Unsatisfactory or Marginal will result in a rating of unacceptable for the Past Performance Factor and disqualification for award.

BASIS FOR AWARD

M3.1 General. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described in Section M2.

M3.2 IDIQ Prime Contracts: Based on the evaluation factors listed, prime contracts will be awarded to all qualifying offerors that receive a Pass rating for Vol I – Administrative and Responsibility Material, an Acceptable rating for Factor 1 – IDIQ Management, and an Acceptable rating in Factor 2 – Past Performance.

M3.2.1 In accordance with the Source Selection Procedures utilized, the Government does not anticipate entering into Discussions prior to award announcement. This does not preclude the Government from opening Discussions if warranted.