12_Attachment_4_FAR_52212_2_Evaluation_Addendum_Temp_Fac_Rev_03.docx

FAR 52.212-2 Addendum

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Temporary Facility

1. SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and Subparts 15.101-2 and 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300; the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government intends to award one firm-fixed price, commercial contract for temporary facilities at Hill Air Force Base, UT. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the solicitation attachments.

The Government will select the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror, based upon an evaluation of technical, past performance, and price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Addendum to 52.212-1 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the government. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability requirements.

This acquisition is set-aside for all small business concerns in the United States and will utilize 13 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 121.406 with regards to small business size.

· Offerors which will be the actual manufacturer of the item, must meet the requirements defined in 13 CFR 121.406(a).

· Offerors which will qualify as a non-manufacturer, must meet the requirements defined in 13 CFR 121.406(b).

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Temporary Facility Procurement. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted and the availability of funds.

c. Use of Government Property The Government will provide an appropriately sized plot of land on Hill Air Force Base for the installation of the temporary facility, parking, and access road(s).

d. 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.

e. 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 factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions technically unacceptable.

f. Source Selection Process The Government is anticipating a high level of participation for this acquisition. As this is a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) non-recurring effort, the source selection process may limit the number of proposals evaluated. The team will first rank proposals according to Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Starting with the lowest priced offer, the Government will begin evaluation of the Technical and Past Performance Factors. The team will continue to evaluate in order of lowest TEP to highest TEP until one technically acceptable offer, with acceptable past performance is identified. After one technically acceptable offer, with acceptable past performance is identified, the Government may choose to award without discussions and may refrain from evaluating the remaining proposals.

If discussions are needed to establish acceptability then the team will establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c); conduct discussions with all offerors within the competitive range; and solicit final proposal revisions from those within the competitive range.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 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.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Design Proposal Subfactor 2: Manufacturing and/or Procurement Plan Subfactor 3: Program Management Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(1), Technical, when combined with Past Performance, is significantly less important than cost or price.

b. Factor 1: Technical The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below in Table 1 for each subfactor. The technical evaluation for acceptability will be in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure it sufficiently explains how they will accomplish/satisfy the requirements of each technical subfactor listed below. 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.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors and minimum levels of acceptability:

Subfactor 1: Design Proposal

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s design proposal for the entire project, along with a design maturation plan, which demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to deliver a 100% design solution on or before 45 days after receipt of contract award. All submissions shall follow USACE A/E/C CAD Standard, Release 6.0. The contractor shall develop construction specifications to UFC requirements in UFGS format. Additionally, all designs shall be stamped and sealed by a registered professional engineer, architect, NCIDQ (Interiors), or other design discipline with formal credentials. The proposed design shall demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to identify, understand, and integrate the Government’s temporary facility requirements for layout, manufacturing, security, safety, and communication standards in accordance with the following attachments:

a. Attachment 1 - Statement of Work, Revision 03, paragraphs:

· 1.

· 3. through 3.1.5.7.

· 3.2. through 3.2.9.5.

· 3.2.10. through 3.2.18.5.

b. Attachment 1A - Workspace Specification

c. Attachment 1B - Unified Facilities Criteria – Whole Building Design Guide

d. Attachment 1C - Hill AFB - Base Facility Design Standards

e. Attachment 1E - Intelligence Community Directive / Intelligence Community Standards (ICD/ICS) 705

f. Attachment 1N - Communications Requirements

Minimum Level of Acceptability: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s design proposal for the entire project, along with a design maturation plan, demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to deliver a 100% design solution on or before 45 days after receipt of contract award.

Subfactor 2: Manufacturing and/or Procurement Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Manufacturing and/or Procurement Plan to source material, manufacture, and/or procure the necessary manufactured components.

1. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Manufacturing and/or Procurement Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to:

a. Acquire and/or produce a 24,530 sq. ft. single story, pre-fabricated, secure facility in accordance with ICD/ICS 705 construction standards

b. Obtain required systems furniture in accordance specifications and directed source contracting requirements

2. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s plan identifies all long-lead material and manufactured components, which place at risk their ability to meet the Government’s delivery need date of 270 days after receipt of contract; and develop effective mitigation steps for each identified risk which ensures on-time delivery.

Subfactor 3: Program Management Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Program Management Plan.

1. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposed Program Management Plan demonstrates an approach that clearly identifies the resource capacity, supply chain management, and logistics processes required for obtaining, packaging, shipping, installing, and delivery of a 24,530 square foot single story, pre-fabricated, secure facility with installed systems furniture in accordance with the provided standards and specifications by the Government’s need date of 270 days after receipt of contract award.

2. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the Program Management Plan clearly describes the Offeror’s proposed management approach to quality control and accreditation support, and how they will be applied to reduce program risks.

3. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) which identifies the critical program milestones and critical path to deliver a fully operational and accredited, temporary, secure facility on-time. The plan shall also contain the results of a quantitative schedule simulation (such as, Monte Carlo), which was performed by the Offeror against the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), and clearly demonstrates an overall schedule variance of <5% at the 95% confidence level.

4. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Program Management Plan clearly describes its approach to accomplish Individual Unique Identifier (IUID) for the temporary facility in accordance with MIL-STD-130N and DFARS 252.211-7003.

c. Factor 2: Past Performance The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” (Table 2) to be eligible for award.

1. Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

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.”

2. Recent/Relevant Past Performance

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 Government Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

a. 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.

b. Relevancy Assessment - The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the scope under those contracts relates to the scope of this requirement, specifically relating to delivery of a pre-fabricated, secure temporary facility which meets ICD/ICS 705 construction standards.

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 (PPIFs), Attachment 5, and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

d. Factor 3: Price The Government will rank all technically acceptable offers by the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as calculated below. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the following:

1. Reasonableness Price reasonableness is generally established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. In general, price reasonableness is an assessment of whether or not the price is too high. Unreasonably high pricing may give the Government cause to eliminate a proposal from consideration.

2. Unbalanced Pricing Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or unit ordering quantities is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced. A proposal may be rejected if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable program risk to the Government. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are balanced IAW with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The TEP will be computed as the sum total of all FFP CLINs (0001-0005). If awarded a contract, the proposed CLIN prices shall be contractually binding. CLIN 0005 is an option CLIN included in the TEP calculation and shall be contractually binding. The proposed price for CLIN 0002, Site Preparation, shall be less than $1M.