13R14_Section_M.doc

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

a. INTRODUCTION: This section outlines those factors, which comprise the criteria the Government will consider in evaluating Offerors' capabilities and proposals. The criteria listed are intended to show the scope of the evaluation to be performed on proposals submitted in response to the Request for Proposal. Evaluations will be accomplished by comparing Offerors' capabilities and proposal elements against the Government’s requirements.

b. BASIS FOR AWARD: This is a best value competitive source selection restricted to HUBZone small business concerns, conducted in accordance with tradeoff source selection processes pursuant to FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, performance confidence and Cost or Price. Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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 Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government will compare differences in the value of technical features/capabilities and performance confidence with differences in cost or price to the Government. In making this comparison the Government values superior technical features/capabilities and performance confidence greater than lowest cost or price to the Government (see FAR 15.101-1). This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical, performance confidence and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror(s) outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to the Government to achieve slightly superior capability and performance confidence.

c. PROCEDURES. All information furnished by Offerors will be evaluated, including (if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions) Offeror’s responses to Evaluations Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs).

i. Under the Technical factor, subfactors 1 and 2 will receive a color and an adjectival rating (subfactor assessment) in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.2, Table 1, combined Technical/Risk Ratings. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color/adjectival rating for the Technical factor. The subfactor assessment depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the evaluation criteria and the solicitation requirements. Proposal risk represents the risks that are identified with an Offeror’s proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation.

ii. Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including cost and schedule. Each relevant contract shall have been completed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to Technical subfactors and the Cost factor. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s present and past performance, including joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners, will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contacts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are the most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor is being proposed. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy definitions apply:

iii. More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent, less relevant performance.

iv. The SSEB will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The SSEB will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by Offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources.

v. When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

vi. The SSEB may consider the Offeror’s (including subcontractor, teaming arrangement and joint ventures) past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort (contract) by effort basis.

vii. As a result of an analysis of those positive and negative aspects indicators identified, each offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. These ratings are defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical factor and the Cost factor, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

viii. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorable or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

ix. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

x. After evaluation of all technical subfactors and the performance confidence assessment have been completed, cost or price to the Government will be compared against the evaluation results to determine the combination that provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

d. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: Proposals will be reviewed to determine if the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration. Offerors must clearly identify any exception taken to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Offerors that are not excluded from consideration are considered “evaluated offerors” in the evaluation process described below.

e. PROCEDURES: All information submitted by Offerors will be evaluated, including proposals and, if applicable, responses to questions and proposal revisions. Each of the subfactors within the Technical Factor will receive a combined technical/risk color rating. The combined technical/risk color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the evaluation criteria and the solicitation requirements as well as the risk identified with an Offeror’s proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation. Past Performance will be rated using a performance confidence assessment based on assessing an Offeror’s past and present performance. The performance confidence assessment rating will be established through an integrated analysis of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. After evaluation of the Technical factor and the performance confidence assessment has been completed, price/cost to the Government will be compared against the evaluation results to determine the combination that provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

f. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR AWARD: The three (3) factors identified below will be considered during proposal evaluation, the first two being of equal importance, with cost or price being significantly less important than the first two. However, cost/price will still contribute substantially to the best value award decision:

i. Factor 1 - Technical – The following subfactors make up the Technical factor, with Subfactor 1 being of more importance than Subfactor 2:

1. Subfactor 1 - Contract Management– The soundness of the Offeror’s approach for adequately staffing and managing multiple construction projects under short, time-critical deadlines, including subcontractor management and control while minimizing technical, cost, and schedule risks. The soundness of Offeror’s approach to in-house work efforts through identification of skilled tradespersons on staff or an ongoing business relationship with local trade unions.

2. Subfactor 2 - Quality Control Plan – Soundness of the Offeror’s quality control procedures and methods, frequency of inspections of work, and interface with Government project managers.

ii. Factor 2: Past Performance. This factor will address the Offeror’s record regarding its ability to mobilize a skilled work force in a timely fashion that will satisfy program requirements. The extent to which the Offeror’s past performance met customer requirements, including the Offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally the contractor’s business-like concern for the interests of the customer will be evaluated. In addition, the degree to which the Offeror complies with FAR 52.219-8, "Utilization of Small Business Concerns" will be evaluated based on performance under previous Government contracts containing this clause. The Government shall seek and evaluate relevant past performance information based on (1) past performance information provided by the offeror, (2) information obtained from the references provided by the offeror, and (3) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s ability to perform the construction work described in this RFP, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating “neutral”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

iii. Factor 3: Cost or Price – The cost or price factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

1. Reasonableness – The degree to which the proposed coefficient factor percentage compares to the factor a reasonable and prudent person would expect to incur for the same or similar goods or services in the Utica/Rome, New York area. The evaluation for award will be based upon a comparison of the offeror’s proposed coefficient factor to that reported in the current R.S. Means, Inc. ® Unit Price Book (UPB) for the Utica/Rome area. Unreasonably high or low coefficient factor percentage, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirements or the coefficient represents an unacceptable risk. Coefficients proposed at less than 1.0 would indicate a decrease to the R.S. Means, Inc. ® UPB with City Cost Index (CCI) adjustment and would require further explanation as to why it should be considered reasonable. The offeror may provide examples and rationale of why a low coefficient should be considered.

The cost or price factor will not be rated and color coded as are technical evaluation criteria.

g. CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

h. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FROM USE OF GFP. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

i. PRE-AWARD SURVEY. The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.