Section_M_(B674_3Paint_Booth_Inserts).pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BUILDING 674

THREE PAINT BOOTH INSERTS

SOURCE SELECTION

1. BASIS FOR AWARDS

1.1. This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, that is deemed responsible IAW the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors and all other information required by Section L - Instructions to Offerors (ITO) of this solicitation.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded - The Government intends to award one contract for the

Building 674, Three Paint Booth Inserts project. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred. The Government intends and reserves the right to award without discussions.

1.3. Proposal Revisions - If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range and/or contract award.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

The Government will evaluate the factors and sub-factors described below:

Factor One – Price

Factor Two – Technical

Sub-Factor One: Technical Approach Sub-Factor Two: Company Experience

Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

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

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%23P25_3805

2.1.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

2.1.2.1. A minimum of the three lowest priced offers will be evaluated, unless fewer than three offers are received.

2.1.2.2. If the lowest price offeror is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance and meets all other requirements of this solicitation, award will be made to that offeror.

2.1.2.3. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.1.2.3.1. Award to the first technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.1.2.3.2. Set a competitive range that may include some or all of the offerors

2.1.2.3.3. Continue evaluating additional offerors

2.1.2.4. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability.

2.1.2.5. Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

2.2. FACTOR ONE PRICE (Volume I)

2.2.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Balance, and (4) TEP.

2.2.1.1. Completeness - The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L ITO of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.2.1.2. Reasonableness - The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Cost/Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR Subpart 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.2.1.3. Balance - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more price elements is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Subpart 15.404-1.

The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the proposals. IAW FAR Subpart 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

2.2.1.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) - The TEP is the sum of all CLIN totals. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the award decision.

2.3. FACTOR TWO TECHNICAL (Volume II)

2.3.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability - 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 ITO. The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, 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 Government may make a final determination as to the offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the offeror. The offeror’s proposal shall not simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate SOW language for the technical volume.

2.3.2. Technical Acceptability - The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of technically “Acceptable” or technically “Unacceptable.” Any “Unacceptable” sub-factor rating criteria below shall result in a proposal being rated technically “Unacceptable”.

2.3.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single element or sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.” 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. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following Sub-Factors:

One - a Technical Approach and Two - Company Experience.

2.3.4. Sub-Factor One: Technical Approach

Technical approach is acceptable when the offeror provides in detail an approach that is reasonable, realistic, achievable, and demonstrates the following:

2.3.4.1. Design Build Narrative - Offeror meets minimum criteria when it demonstrates in a written narrative the design build approach that minimizes disruption of existing building 674 aircraft production activities during construction activities; protects

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

government personnel, aircraft, equipment, and existing buildings; secures and protects construction materials and equipment IAW SOW Paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.8, 3.16, 16.1, 19.1.7, 19.1.9.

2.3.4.2. Floor Plan and Cross Section - Offeror meets minimum criteria when it provides a preliminary floor plan and a cross section showing the three paint booth inserts dimensions, egress circulation spaces, and distances between paint booth insert structures and existing walls IAW SOW Paragraphs 5.2.1 and 5.2.2.

2.3.4.3. Schedule - Offeror meets the minimum criteria when it provides a project schedule that identifies a critical path that meets the schedule events and does not exceed the time requirements IAW SOW Paragraph 2.

2.3.5. Sub-Factor Two: Company Experience

Company experience is acceptable when the offeror and sub-contractors demonstrates expertise and capability by providing one example project for each of the following six categories: a) Prime Contractor; b) Architectural/Engineering (A/E) Design Contractor; c) General Contractor; d) Paint Booth Insert Contractor; e) Fire Suppression Contractor; and

f) Central Vacuum System Contractor.

The Government reserves the right to contact previous contracts (e.g., Paint Booth Customer), and/or make a site visit to evaluate the offeror’s example projects.

a) Prime Contractor - Meets the minimum criteria when it provides an example using the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1 and Paragraph 5.3.2.2.1.1, which includes the following:

i. Includes all information required in the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1;

ii. Demonstrated that all the work was accomplished under the same contract or task/delivery order;

iii. Evidence the offeror has been in business for a minimum of seven consecutive years prior to date of issuance of this solicitation;

iv. Evidence the Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) was given within five years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation;

v. Evidence the offeror accomplished the project listed (i.e. offeror shall be the one who performed the work not an individual now working for the offeror);

vi. Demonstrated design build experience;

vii. Demonstrated experience working on a military installation; and

viii. Demonstrated experience with managing subcontractors including:

A/E designers; structural steel fabricators/erectors; roofers; fire suppression; mechanical; plumbing; electrical; and two or more equipment manufacturers of similar cost, size, and complexity (e.g., paint booth insert or central vacuum system) and provided subcontractor company names.

b) Architectural/Engineering (A/E) Design Contractor - Meets the minimum criteria when it provides an example using the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1 and Paragraph 5.3.2.2.1.2, which includes the following:

i. Includes all information required in the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1;

ii. Demonstrated that all the work was accomplished under the same contract or task/delivery order;

iii. Evidence the offeror has been in A/E design business for a minimum of seven consecutive years prior to date of issuance of this solicitation;

iv. Evidence the BOD was given within five years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation;

v. Evidence the offeror accomplished the project listed (i.e. offeror shall be the one who performed the work not an individual now working for the offeror);

vi. Demonstrated design build experience; and

vii. Demonstrated integrating a new large complex piece of equipment into a new or existing facility similar in size and complexity as the new paint booth inserts IAW SOW Paragraph 5.

c) General Contractor – Meets the minimum criteria when it provides an example using the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1 and Paragraph 5.3.2.2.1.3, which includes the following:

i. Includes all information required in the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1;

ii. Demonstrated that all the work was accomplished under the same contract or task/delivery order;

iii. Evidence the offeror has been in the general contracting business for a minimum of seven consecutive years prior to date of issuance of this solicitation;

iv. Evidence the BOD was given within five years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation;

v. Evidence the offeror accomplished the project listed (i.e. offeror shall be the one who performed the work not an individual now working for the offeror);

vi. Demonstrated design build experience and coordination with A/E designer;

vii. Demonstrated management of subcontractors including: A/E designers; structural steel fabricators/erectors; roofers; fire suppression; mechanical; plumbing; electrical; and two or more equipment manufacturers of similar cost, size, and complexity (e.g., paint booth insert or central vacuum system) and provided subcontractor company names.

d) Paint Booth Insert Contractor – Meets the minimum criteria when it provides an example using the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1 and Paragraph 5.3.2.2.1.4, which includes the following:

i. Includes all information required in the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1;

ii. Demonstrated that all the work was accomplished under the same contract or task/delivery order;

iii. Evidence the offeror has been in the paint booth manufacturing business for a minimum of ten consecutive years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation;

iv. Evidence the BOD was given within five years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation;

v. Evidence the offeror accomplished the project listed (i.e. offeror shall be the one who performed the work not an individual now working for the offeror);

vi. Demonstrated design, manufacture, installation, and commissioning of full military aircraft cross draft paint booth insert that was installed in new or existing building and at a minimum met the paint booth inserts dimensions of the current requirement IAW SOW Paragraph 5.2.2;

vii. Demonstrated cross draft paint booth insert had a minimum average cross sectional airflow of 75 Feet per Minute (FPM) IAW SOW Paragraph 5.5.;

viii. Demonstrated a paint booth insert that had automatic control of temperature and humidity with sensors and set points ranges IAW SOW Paragraphs 5.5.1.1. and 5.5.2.; and

ix. Demonstrated a paint booth insert with programmable logic controller (PLC) control and human-machine interface (HMI) display IAW SOW Paragraph 5.6.

e) Fire Suppression Contractor – Meets the minimum criteria when it provides an example using the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1 and Paragraph 5.3.2.2.1.5, which includes the following:

i. Includes all information required in the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1;

ii. Demonstrated that all the work was accomplished under the same contract or task/delivery order;

iii. Evidence the offeror has been in the fire suppression business for a minimum of seven consecutive years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation;

iv. Evidence the BOD was given within five years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation;

v. Evidence the offeror accomplished the project listed (i.e. offeror shall be the one who performed the work not an individual now working for the offeror); and

vi. Demonstrated design, installation, and commissioning of fire sprinkling and high expansion foam systems in an aircraft hangar and/or paint facility of similar size, scope, and complexity as required by the SOW Paragraph 19.

f) Central Vacuum System Contractor - Meets the minimum criteria when it provides an example using the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1 and Paragraph 5.3.2.2.1.6, which includes the following:

i. Includes all information required in the Example Project Template IAW Section L – ITO, Attachment 1;

ii. Demonstrated that all the work was accomplished under the same contract or task/delivery order;

iii. Evidence the offeror has been in the central vacuum business for a minimum of seven consecutive years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation;

iv. Evidence the BOD was given within five years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation;

v. Evidence the offeror accomplished the project listed (i.e. offeror shall be the one who performed the work not an individual now working for the offeror); and

vi. Demonstrated design, installation, and commissioning of a central vacuum system of at least 100 vacuum outlets with at least one of the ports requiring a 200 foot run or longer to the port in an aircraft paint facility of similar size, scope, and complexity as required by the SOW Paragraph 8.

2.4. FACTOR THREE PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume III)

2.4.1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions and Government databases (e.g., Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), customer interviews, etc.). Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

2.4.1.1. Recency is defined as performance less than five years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts/task orders where performance was concluded more than five years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.4.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves similar types and complexities of services described in the 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.

2.4.2. Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following 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.”

2.5. CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION (Volume IV)

2.5.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract, 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 and/or award.

2.5.1.1. 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.

2.5.1.2. Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and/or 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) 336413. 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.

2.5.1.3. Safety Plan will be reviewed for compliance with applicable clauses, regulations and SOW requirements.

2.5.1.4. Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed for compliance with applicable clauses and regulations.

3. DISCUSSIONS

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best offer 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 Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

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 sub-factors. 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.