Attachment_02_Section_M_18_September_2019.docx

FA8601-19-R-A043

Section M (Section J, Attachment 02) Evaluation Factors For Award

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS

FOR AWARD (EFFA)

FOR THE

MULTIPLE AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (MACC)

Solicitation # FA8601-19-R-A043

18 September 2019

Evaluation Factors For Award

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Evaluation Factors For Award

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government will select the proposals with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented, 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-priced technically-acceptable proposal.

The Government intends to award to two (2) pools of contractors (an 8(a) pool and a small business pool), resulting in up to twelve (12) contracts across both pools. Of those twelve (12) contracts, at least four (4) contracts are reserved for 8(a) small businesses.

1.1 Evaluation Process

The evaluation process to be used is as follows:

· Phase 1 Step 1. The Government will then review the proposals in each group to ensure compliance with Section L, Instruction to Offerors.

Step 2. The Government will determine if clarification is in the best interest of the Government. If clarification is not in the best interest of the Government, the Government will remove non-responsive proposals from competition and inform the Offerors.

Step 3. The Government will sort the proposals into two groups, 8(a) small businesses into one group and small businesses into another.

Step 4. The Government will organize the proposals in each group in order of price proposed for the sample project from lowest to highest.

· Phase 2 Step 1. Beginning with the lowest priced proposal and continuing in order of price, the Government will evaluate the 8(a) proposals for Technical Acceptability. This evaluation process will continue until up to four (4) 8(a) small businesses are found technically acceptable or until the pool of 8(a) proposals have been exhausted.

Step 2. The 8(a) proposals that are found technically acceptable will be evaluated for Price, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if they are complete, balanced, and reasonable in accordance with Paragraph 2.2 and its subparagraphs listed in Section M, below. The Government reserves the right to issue clarifications or enter into discussions when determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Step 3. Evaluation will continue until up to (4) of those contracts being reserved for 8(a) small businesses, are found Technically Acceptable with complete, balanced and reasonable pricing in accordance with Paragraph 2.2 and its subparagraphs listed in this section below or until the 8(a) pool has been exhausted.

· Phase 3 Step 1. In the event there are 8(a) small business proposals remaining, after determining technical acceptability and complete, balanced, and reasonable pricing for the up to four (4) reserved 8(a) proposals identified in Phase 2 above, the remaining 8(a) small business proposals will be regrouped with the small business proposals.

Step 2. The Government will then organize the proposals (comprised of the remaining 8(a) small businesses and small businesses) in order of price proposed for the sample project from lowest to highest.

Step 3. Beginning with the lowest priced proposal and continuing in order of price, the Government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability. This evaluation process will continue until up to eight (8) contracts are found technically acceptable.

Step 4. The proposals found technically acceptable will be evaluated for Price, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if they are complete, balanced, and reasonable in accordance with Paragraph 2.2 and its subparagraphs listed in Section M, below. The Government reserves the right to issue clarifications when determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Step 5. Evaluation will continue until up to eight (8) technically acceptable proposals, are determined to have complete, balanced and reasonable pricing in accordance with Paragraph 2.2 and its subparagraphs listed in this section below.

· Phase 4

· Awardable proposals will be sorted into two pools, the 8(a) small business pool and the small business pool.

· NOTE: Number of contracts to be awarded is subject to Paragraph 1.5 of Section M, below.

1.2 Discussions

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned that their initial offers should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors if the SSA determines that discussions are necessary at any time during the evaluation of the proposals. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) during any discussion period.

1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4 Contractor Responsibility

In accordance with FAR 9.103, the PCO shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the PCO makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The PCO shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel.

Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the PCO reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the PCO shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

1.5 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award up to 12 contracts (up to (4) reserved for 8(a) small businesses) as a result of this competition. The Government reserves the right to award fewer ID/IQ contracts than indicated above, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. Further, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to determine the number of contracts awarded or to award no contracts at all. Offerors may only bid in one of the two pools for initial contract award.

1.6 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. A competitive range is not currently set. The Government reserves the right to set a competitive range. The competitive range determination will be based on evaluation criteria. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees to and accepts all solicitation requirements, including 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 determined ineligible for award.

The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review to verify all proposals conform to the requirements set forth in Section L. Thereafter, proposals will be evaluated using the following factors:

1. Factor 1: Technical

a. SubFactor 1: Management Approach

b. SubFactor 2: Prior Experience

c. SubFactor 3: Technical Execution of Sample Project

d. SubFactor 4: Bonding

2. Factor 2: Price (Sample Project)

2.1 Factor 1: Technical

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable IAW Table 1: Factor 1, Technical Ratings, listed below. The Government must be assured that each Offeror has the ability to perform the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW), Section J, Attachment 03. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following SubFactors:

The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the SubFactors. Detailed instructions are included in Section L. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each SubFactor a rating as shown below. Offerors must receive an acceptable rating on each SubFactors 1 through 4 in order to be considered technically acceptable. A rating of unacceptable in one or more SubFactors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation factor. The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability:

Table 1: Factor 1, Technical Ratings

2.1.1 SubFactor 1: Management Approach

Measures of Merit: This SubFactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following:

1. An executable Construction Quality Control Plan (CQCP) IAW Section J, Attachment 03, Statement of Work (SOW), paragraph 11 and its subparagraphs, that covers all activities, for both onsite and offsite work, by subcontractors, fabricators, suppliers and purchasing agents and includes:

a. A clear and effective quality control (QC) organization chart, IAW Section J, Attachment 03, SOW, paragraphs 11.2.1 and 11.2.2, with supporting narrative, that identifies precise lines of authority and responsibilities, including names, qualifications, and duties of each person assigned to a QC function, including project liaison personnel proficient in English speaking and writing.

b. Effective procedures for scheduling, reviewing, certifying and managing submittals IAW Section J, Attachment 03, SOW, paragraph 11.2.3.

c. Effective procedures for tracking deficiencies from identification through acceptable corrective action and effective procedures for verifying identified deficiencies have been corrected IAW Section J, Attachment 03, SOW, paragraph 11.2.5.

d. Effective reporting procedures, including proposed reporting formats IAW Section J, Attachment 03, SOW, paragraph 11.2.6.

2. An executable Multi-Project Management Plan for the MACC, IAW Section J, Attachment 03, SOW, paragraph 3 and its subparagraphs, that includes:

a. Effective processes and procedures for simultaneously managing multiple projects at multiple locations at Wright Patterson Air Force Base for the life of the MACC program performance period.

b. Upon contract award, these plans may be incorporated into the basic contract as part of the contract requirements.

2.1.2 SubFactor 2: Prior Experience

Measures of Merit: This SubFactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following:

1. Completed three (3) to five (5) Experience Information Sheets utilizing Section J, Attachment 05, for construction/renovation projects above $500,000.00 of ongoing (with at least 50% completion) or completed efforts within the past five (5) years that include the following:

a. At least one (1) project that is a design/build effort, IAW SOW paragraph 1.11 or 1.12, in which the Offeror acted as the prime contractor overseeing both design and construction in a single Firm Fixed Price contract.

b. At least one (1) project with a contract value over $1,000,000.00.

c. At least one (1) example of concurrent construction projects as a prime contractor.

d. At least one (1) project for the construction/renovation of

i. a laboratory space;

ii. a secure, compartmented information facilities (SCIF); or

iii. a project performed in accordance with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties”.

2. Completed Experience Overview Sheet utilizing Section J, Attachment 04, reflecting the three (3) to five (5) contracts in the Experience Information Sheets for construction /renovation projects above $500,000.00 of ongoing or completed efforts within the past five (5) years.

2.1.3 SubFactor 3: Technical Execution of Sample Project

Measures of Merit: This SubFactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following:

1. A sound approach to executing the sample project requirement IAW the Statement of Work (SOW) included in Section J, Attachment 08; by including:

An executable Design Validation Report that includes discipline specific analysis that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding and acceptance of the Government provided design which demonstrates a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful performance and includes any actual errors/mistakes/omissions.

An executable Schedule Plan that includes incorporation of key project milestones, phasing plan, crew assembly and work schedule, safety plan, any restrictions that must be considered in the schedule and an understanding of events associated with coordinating submittals.

a. Note: Proposing a contract duration less than the duration listed in accordance with the Technical Specifications and Statement of Work (SOW) will not add value to an Offeror’s proposal.

An executable technical approach that includes an understanding of managing the contract and accomplishing all work elements of the project in accordance with the Technical Specifications and Statement of Work (SOW), included in Section J, Attachment 08.

A complete and sound Redacted Construction Estimate Breakdown IAW Section J, Attachment 08a that:

b. Breaks out direct material quantities, direct labor types and hours and other direct quantities/hours for the sample project; and

c. Provides a narrative description of the breakdowns for direct material quantities, labor hour types and hours, and other direct quantities/hours that demonstrates a clear and accurate understanding of the requirement, accounts for all major elements of work, and reflects consistency with the Offeror’s technical approach.

Upon contract award and pursuant to availability of funds, the Government reserves the right to, and intends to award, this sample project, as a task order to a single contractor under the MACC.

2.1.4 SubFactor 4: Bonding

Measures of Merit: This SubFactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following:

1. A complete Bonding Information Request, IAW Section J, Attachment 06 returned to the PCO no later than the required proposal submission date reflecting a minimum bonding capacity of $5M per project/$10M aggregate.

2.2 Factor 2: Price

The Government will evaluate the total price proposed for the sample project to determine whether prices are complete, balanced, and reasonable for the work to be performed IAW data submitted per Section L, paragraph 5.0, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis. Any other data provided by the Offeror with the price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated. As task orders will be issued on a fixed price basis, the Government does not intend to perform a cost realism analysis.

The Offeror’s price proposal for the sample project will not be assigned a rating, but will be evaluated for completeness, price reasonableness, and balance as follows:

2.2.1 Completeness

Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L, paragraph 5.0 and all subparagraphs of 5.0. Prices are considered complete when the Offeror provides the basis for pricing, necessary for the Government to understand what the prices represent and to enable the Government to determine if the prices are reasonable and balanced. In addition, the completed bid schedule (Attachment 10), and the Construction Estimate Breakdown for Sample Project (Section J, Attachment 07) must be completed as directed in Section L, paragraph 5.2.4. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an Offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced, or incomplete.

Submission of an incomplete Pricing Volume as set forth in Section L, 5.1 will cause the Offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the RFP and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

Note: Incomplete proposed prices, either initially proposed or updated later as a result of discussions, if discussions are conducted, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement.

2.2.2 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price (TEP), the price of one or more unit price rates are significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.2.3 Price Reasonableness

For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. In addition, price reasonableness will be used to assess the likelihood an Offeror would provide a competitive price on future task orders. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. The following are examples of the price analysis techniques that may be applied: comparing proposed prices to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE); comparing proposed prices to those proposed by other Offerors, and comparing proposed prices to historical labor rates proposed on recently awarded acquisitions.

Offerors who’s TEP is determined to be unreasonable IAW FAR 15.404 may not be considered for award.

If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness, or if the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the PCO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. An Offeror’s price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.