Attachment_13_Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_09OCT26.docx

Section M Evaluation Factors Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements (SABER)

5 October 2026

SABER Section M Page 10 of 14

Table of Contents

Contents

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.01 General Information

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul (RFO) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Revolutionary Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS), and Appendix C of the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022 (Source Selection Procedures can be found under DFARS 215.300 on acquisition.gov). All regulatory and statutory references will align with the changes made in the RFO, accessible via acquisition.gov and the R-DFARS accessible via https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/DFARS_FAR_overhaul_clasa_deviaitons.html.

The Government will select the proposal(s) 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 RFO 9.104 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.

2.0 Evaluation Methodology

2.2.1 Overall Criteria

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

1) Factor 1 – Price

2) Factor 2 – Technical

a. Subfactor 1 – Seed Project

b. Subfactor 2 – Subcontractor Utilization Plan

c. Subfactor 3 – Management Plan

d. Subfactor 4 – Quality Control Plan

3) Factor 3 – Past Performance

4) Factor 4 – Contractor Responsibility

2.0.1.1 Initial Price Evaluation

An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and Section 3.0.1.4 below. Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.0.1.2 Technical and Past Performance Evaluation

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

The Government intends to evaluate the minimum number of offerors necessary to satisfy the best interest of the government. 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.

2.0.1.3 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, the government shall award without negotiations IAW RFO 15.105-2.

2.0.1.4 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:

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

2.0.1.4.2 Establish a competitive range and enter into negotiations IAW RFO 15.204.

2.0.1.5 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.

2.1 Volume I – Price (Factor 1)

3.0.1 Overall Criteria

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are:

1) Completeness

2) Reasonableness

3) Balance

4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

3.0.1.1 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.

3.0.1.2 Reasonableness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in RFO 15.404-1. Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

3.0.1.3 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.

3.0.1.4 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 RFO 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract and RFO 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services). To determine the price for the periods covered by RFO 52.217-9 and RFO 52.217-8, 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.

3.0.1.5 Construction Wage Rate Requirements

The rates submitted in a Section J, Attachment 2 will also be evaluated to ensure they meet or exceed the rates in the applicable Construction Wage Rate Determination. RFO Part 22 and supplemental guidance governs the appropriate application of Construction Wage Rate Requirements. Should there be a wage determination update, the offeror will need to adjust accordingly.

3.0.1.6 Construction Wage Rate Requirements/Wage Determinations The rates proposed for the various Wage Determinations (Section J Attachment 6-11) will also be evaluated to ensure they meet or exceed the rates in the applicable Construction Wage Rate Requirements Wage Determinations. RFO Part 22 and supplemental guidance governs the appropriate application of Construction Wage Rate Requirements.

3.0.1.7 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.

3.0.1.8 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 at least 3 awardees that are awarded contracts for the SABER requirement. Of that pool, the lowest priced offeror on the Seed Project will receive award.

2.2 Volume II – Technical (Factor 2)

4.0.1 Overall Criteria

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 SOW. The offeror’s proposal shall NOT merely rephrase or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.0.1.1 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 1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of negotiations, 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 negotiations. However, the Government may negotiate if necessary.

4.0.1.2 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.

4.0.1.2.1 Material

Provide material submittals to include all items identified in Seed Project SOW Section 1 and detailed narrative describing how this meets the equipment requirements of the Seed Project SOW. All material submittals shall be submitted on AF IMT 3000, Material Approval Submittal Form.

4.0.1.2.2 Concrete/Backfilling

This element is technically acceptable when the narrative provides a detailed approach and methodologies to complete all of the requirements IAW Seed Project SOW Section 5.

4.0.1.2.3 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 Section 7.

4.0.1.2.4 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 Section 8.

4.0.1.3 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 while following the requirements set forth under the clause at RFO 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting.

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 requirement

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

4) How prime contractor intends to meet performance requirements under the clause at RFO 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting. Particular attention shall be directed towards service and construction-related requirements as the percentage of work to be completed by the prime contractor will change based on the type of work being performed.

4.0.1.4 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 through 4.6.

4.0.1.5 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.

Volume III – Past Performance (Factor 3)

5.5.1 Overall Criteria

Past performance information will be gathered from, but not limited to, 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. Offeror may not use past performance as a 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). Offerors may address any performance problems/issues that the Government identifies and shall explain the corrective action taken, resolution of problem, and current status if period of performance is active. The Government will consider this information in determining the offeror’s past performance rating. Any unaddressed past performance records with an overall rating of Unsatisfactory or Marginal may result in a rating of unacceptable for the Past Performance Factor and disqualification for award.

5.5.1.1 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings identified in Table 2, Past Performance Evaluation Ratings. As this is an LPTA source selection, the government must only determine if the performance is technically acceptable and will not perform a comparative assessment of the information IAW RFO 15.202(c)(2).

Table 2: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

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).

Note 1: 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 RFO 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.”

5.5.1.1.1 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.

5.5.1.1.2 Relevancy

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.

5.5.1.1.3 Discrepancies

The offeror shall address any performance problems/issues as instructed in Section L 6.1.3 and explain the corrective action taken or current status. The Government will consider this information in determining the offeror's past performance rating.

6.0 Volume IV Part I – Contract Documentation

6.01 Overall Criteria

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 exclude the offeror from competition.

6.0.1.1 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.

6.0.1.2 Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model The government will evaluate the offeror’s compliance with the CMMC requirement on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis.

1) Evaluation Process: The government will verify that offeror has a current CMMC Level 1 certification at the time of award by reviewing the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).

2) An “Unacceptable” rating for this factor will render the entire proposal ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to make this determination without conduction of discussions.

Table 3: Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Ratings

Acceptable A proposal will be rated “Acceptable” if the government verifies in SPRS that the offeror has a current CMMC Level 1 certification at the time of award.

7.1 Volume IV Part II – Contractor Responsibility

7.0.1 Overall Criteria

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include evidence of limitations on contracting documentation and compliance with Cybersecurity Maturity Model.

7.0.1.1 Limitations of Contracting

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

7.0.1.2 Bona Fide Office

In accordance with SBA Policy Notification No. 6000-874794, the requirement to possess a pre-approved, formal SBA "bona fide place of business" determination at the time of proposal submission is waived. Instead, the successful offeror must establish and obtain SBA approval for a bona fide place of business within the designated competitive geographical area within sixty (60) calendar days of contract award. Failure to do so may result in the contractor to be off-boarded.