Section_M_(FA890313R0002_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award)_3DEC2012.docx

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced Offeror is judged to have a Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

1.1 Award without Discussions

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines discussions to be necessary. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated Unacceptable on any subfactor will be deemed unawardable. Proposals that are rated Unacceptable on any subfactor, after discussions, will be deemed unawardable.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government anticipates awarding one (1) contract or none if the SSA determines it is in the Government's best interest.

If a contractor proposes as a Prime contractor, Subcontractor, or Team Member on this acquisition, then they cannot participate on any other Post Closing Management-13 (PCM-13) proposal in response to this RFP.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(a) The Government will evaluate the factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1.1 - Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

(b) All technical subfactors are weighted equally and are evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the ratings described below.

(c) Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical factor.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

(d) A proposal with a subfactor determined to be Unacceptable, is unawardable.

2.1 Factor 1: Technical

2.1.1 Subfactor 1.1 – Management Approach -- The Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to successfully manage the overall PCM program. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s management approach demonstrates how they will accomplish the following management activities:

(a) Effectively and efficiently manage all Team Members and Subcontractors in the performance of Federal Government PCM services in support of the entire spectrum of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

(b) Successfully and competently execute all PCM activities necessary to carry out the full spectrum of Government needs to monitor, oversee and manage the Housing Privatization (HP), Enhanced Use Leasing (EUL), Value Based Transaction (VBT), Voluntary Action Program (VAP), Real Estate Transactions/Programs and other privatization initiatives, with attention to cost mitigation strategies and provide forecasting, problem resolution and solution implementation. Adequately plan for surges in workload, approximately seven (7) new EUL/VBT projects per year.

(c) Comprehensively, effectively and efficiently develop, implement, and use quality control and quality assurance processes across multiple projects to ensure the financial accuracy and integrity of technical data.

(d) Develop portfolio risk analysis tools and reports, stressing the impact on the portfolio associated with financial and legal support, compliance assessment, market trends, document management and economic analysis.

(e) Develop/implement strategies to coordinate, gather and analyze data from multiple stakeholders (Government and Project Owner data) and report to each management level (for example, installation, major command, AFCEC, Air Staff, SAF, and DOD) while minimizing the need for Government assistance during the various data collection phases.

(f) Develop/implement strategies to transition in the PCM program activities within 90 calendar days after contract award and transition out at the end of the contract to a follow-on Contractor.

2.1.2 Subfactor 1.2 – Document Management - This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates the ability to:

(a) Develop strategies for document retention, reporting, security provisions for data integrity, data interface and migration to government systems and trending of information plus the full spectrum of document management services indentified in the PWS to include legal transactions, financial management, training, lessons learned/best practices, stakeholder sites and topic sites.

(b) Develop strategies to transition current data and integrate the existing document management repository into the Offeror's secure server hosting within 60 calendar days.

(c) Develop an implementation strategy to incorporate existing and new Government privatization projects to include, HP, EUL, VBT, VAP, and other financial and management data and describe how the data will be managed to produce analysis and trending information.

(d) Develop strategies for detailed reports forecasting problem areas and recommending timely procedures to mitigate Government financial risks.

(e) Develop strategies to provide real time access to program data and documents via electronic media to ensure all users are aware of the latest project information.

(f) Develop strategies to optimize document management organization of data and files to reduce redundancies, standardize filing methods and retrieval of current information plus conduct periodic reviews to ensure uploaded files are error free and do not contain sensitive information.

2.1.3 Subfactor 1.3 – Corporate Experience - The Offeror’s corporate experience will be evaluated to substantiate that the Offeror has demonstrated at least three (3) years relevant corporate experience from PCM services within five (5) years prior to issuance date of the solicitation demonstrating the capacity to manage a program scope comparable to the AF HP, EUL, VBT and VAP or any other privatized initiatives (for example Energy) as described in the PWS. The Government will not consider nor evaluate corporate experience on an Offeror submission that concluded more than five (5) years from the issuance date of the solicitation. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s corporate experience demonstrates the Offeror has done the following:

(a) Accomplish work involving simultaneous projects within the diverse PWS requirements. Corporate Experience from 8-10 projects shall be identified in Attachment L-4 in accordance with (IAW) the instructions/notes on Attachment L-4 and Section L, paragraph 4.6(a) and (b).

A minimum of 50% of submitted Projects shall be provided for the Prime, a minimum of one (1) shall be provided for each Team Member (20% or critical); the remaining projects may be distributed among the Team at the discretion of the Offeror. At least three (3) shall cover HP or comparable residential property requirements and at least one (1) shall cover EUL, VBT, or VAP program requirements. The remaining projects may cover any of the listed program requirements. The Prime shall demonstrate at least three concurrently executed projects within the same twelve (12) month period. Three (3) HP or comparable residential property requirements from the Prime must collectively cover all six (6) critical PWS task areas.

(b) Accomplish work for the overall PCM program to include demonstration of work in the following areas of the PWS:

(i) provide financial support/analysis*,

(ii) manage and integrate multiple project analysis into an integrated report*,

(iii) provide specific industry legal advice,

(iv) provide insurance assessments,

(v) identify compliance deficiencies*,

(vi) manage and maintain documentation,

(vii) perform Quality Site Assessments/assistance visits*,

(viii) develop a compliance checklist,

(ix) analyze and provide current market information*,

(x) transition the program documentation repository,

(xi) perform economic analysis*.

*denotes critical task areas

Corporate Experience from the projects identified in paragraph (a) above shall be identified in Attachment L-5 IAW the instructions/notes.

(c) Perform work on the projects identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above. The narrative information shall include a description of the scope of the project work effort, how the effort demonstrates experience in the service specified in the PCM-13 PWS paragraph to which the program relates, Team Members involved in the project, how the Offeror established and maintained effective relationships with stakeholders, location of work, and duration of effort.

2.1.4 Subfactor 1.4 – Small Business Participation (applicable to Large Business only)

(a) If a subcontracting plan is required by FAR 19.7, the subfactor is met when the subcontracting plan and proposal demonstrate the following:

(i) Reflects a valid corporate commitment between all parties in providing subcontracting opportunities for small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned concerns. Includes the strength and specificity of each corporate commitment (i.e., what type of commitment, how binding is the commitment, how specific is the commitment to this proposed effort, and what types of tasks are included in these subcontracting opportunities).

(ii) Reflects three (3) “final” or “most recent” (within three years of date of this solicitation) Individual Subcontracting Report (ISRs) for similar contracts of relative size which show compliance with utilizing the various types of small business forms listed below for those contracts/projects in which you are submitting under Past Performance. If goals were not met on the ISR, provides an explanation as to why the goals/targets were not met.

(iii) Reflects compliance, at a minimum, with PCM goals listed in Section L and below.

(iv) The Offeror demonstrates realistic targets expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total proposed subcontracting dollars for each small business category listed above.

2.2 Factor 2: Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(a) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(b) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the PWS requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) 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 (with at least 50% complete) or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services provided meet the contract requirements. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. Consideration will be given to program similarity, project complexity, technical diversity, contract/subcontract management, contract type and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major (20%) and critical Subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts provided, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, Team Member, including Subcontractors, whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Past Performance Information forms (PPIs), Attachment L-6, and information obtained from the proposal and other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing relevant contracts:

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Pre-Closing Support or Post Closing Management services with a minimum portfolio of 1200 residential units for HP. Pre-Closing or Post Closing Management services with a minimum portfolio value of $2.5M for EUL, VBT, VAP, or other privatized endeavors.

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Pre-Closing Support or Post Closing Management services with a minimum portfolio of 800 residential units for HP. Pre-Closing or Post Closing Management services with a minimum portfolio value of $1.6M for EUL, VBT, VAP, or other privatized endeavors.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Pre-Closing Support or Post Closing Management services with a minimum portfolio of 400 residential units for HP. Pre-Closing or Post Closing Management services with a minimum portfolio value of $600K for EUL, VBT, VAP, or other privatized endeavors.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the quality of the work performed will be assessed for all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

(c) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating IAW paragraph 2.2 (a) above. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant record of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.3 Factor 3: Price. Price will be a consideration in the selection decision. Price analysis will be conducted for each Offeror’s proposal. The following applies to that evaluation:

(a) The evaluation Team will evaluate the contractor's proposals for price reasonableness based on adequate price competition. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each Offeror will be developed. Two pricing models were developed by the Government based on its best estimate of the work to be performed annually under a typical PCM Task Order. This best estimate was developed utilizing historical information and judgment.

(i) A FFP fully burdened hourly labor rate pricing model will apply to all Offerors utilizing their proposed FFP hourly labor rates. Proposed fully burdened hourly labor rates will be input into the model and applied to the predetermined labor hours by labor category, resulting in a calculated total price for each labor category. The labor category hourly rates to be input into the pricing model will be the simple average of the hourly rates proposed for the five (5) years for ordering plus one additional year for performance. All individual labor category total prices will then be totaled to arrive at the total evaluated price for each Offeror. All labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

(ii) A FFP fully burdened pre-priced deliverable pricing model will apply to all Offerors utilizing their proposed FFP deliverables. Proposed FFP deliverables will be input into the model and applied to the predetermined number of occurrences for each deliverable. The FFP deliverable cost will be the simple average of the FFP deliverable proposed for the five years for ordering plus one additional year for performance. All deliverable rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

Both calculations covered above will make up each Offeror’s TEP and be used in the evaluation covered in paragraph b below.

(b) Price reasonableness will be determined based upon a comparison of Total Evaluated Price (TEP) among Offerors and comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). The TEP developed will be the only price discriminator for source selection evaluation purposes.

M003 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

3.0 PRIME CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) will be requested to perform a Financial Capability Risk Assessment for the Prime. The Government will use the results of the Financial Capability Risk Assessment to determine financial responsibility. Failure to meet financial responsibility requirements will render the Offeror’s proposal not awardable.

M004 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

4.0 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 ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

FA8903-13-R-0002

3 DEC 2012