ESC_USAFE_Section_M_25Apr14_Final.docx

PART IV- REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTICE: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

52.217-05 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

OTHER SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

A. SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURE

1. 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 sub-factors. 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. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability.

2. Award without Discussions The Government intends to make award with discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical acceptable standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to not conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines discussions to be unnecessary. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated Unacceptable on any factor or sub-factor will be deemed un-awardable.

3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government seeks to award approximately five (5) contracts under this 100% competitive Full and Open Environmental Services and Construction (ESC) United States Air Force in Europe (USAFE) acquisition. A company may only be awarded one contract as a Prime, or as part of a Joint Venture. A company may participate as a team member or subcontractor with more than one offer. The Government reserves the right to make more or fewer awards if the SSA determines it is in the Government's best interest.

4. 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. If the Financial Capability Risk Assessment is “unacceptable” for a small business, the SBA will make a determination of competency and issue a certificate of competency if determined competent. Failure to meet financial responsibility requirements will render the Offeror’s proposal not awardable.

5. Offeror provides the Prime’s total bonding capacity, the Prime’s current excess bonding capacity, and demonstrated proof of excess bonding capacity to obtain one task order bond in the amount of $2.5 million.

B. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) who present technically acceptable offers and the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance and Cost/Price.

Factor 1 – Technical Sub-factor 1.1 – Management Approach Sub-factor 1.2 – Resources Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor 3 –Price

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. Factor 1 – Technical

a. All technical sub-factors are equal and are evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

b. The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of Technical sub-factors:

Any sub-factor that is rated Unacceptable will result in the overall Technical factor being determined Unacceptable. The proposals will be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors:

1.1. Sub-factor 1.1 – Management Approach: The Offeror’s management approach will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to manage the overall ESC USAFE PWS requirement on schedule and within budget in accordance with all requirements specified in Section L, paragraph 4.4.1. This sub-factor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates at a minimum, the following:

(a) A sound and comprehensive management approach for the full scope of services in the ESC USAFE PWS, including coordinating and administering the work within the Prime and Team members. A sound and comprehensive approach describing management of the communication processes including conflict resolution, distribution of responsibilities and allocation of projects/TOs among the Prime, Team members and subcontractors.

(1) Provide for project execution in four of the six European countries (UK, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Portugal, and Spain).

(2) Describe your method for identifying and mitigating risks in the following areas: schedule delays, Subcontractor nonperformance, cost growth, poor quality of services/deliverables, and site safety.

(3) Provide a diagram or graphic presenting the organizational chart and flow or lines of communication between Prime, Team members, and Subcontractor.

1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Resources: The Offeror’s resources will be evaluated to substantiate that the Offeror has demonstrated the team’s capability and capacity to meet the complex ESC USAFE PWS requirements that apply to all geographical locations included in the ESC USAFE mission. This sub-factor is met when the Offeror’s proposal presents resources demonstrating the following:

(a) Offeror demonstrates an approach for obtaining, developing and retaining sufficient, qualified and experienced personnel over the period of performance (POP) of the entire contract in accordance with instructions in Attachments L-1 and L-2.

(b) Offeror demonstrates how team resources will be used to meet both typical and surge requirements under this contract in geographically dispersed locations in the USAFE Regional Support Team (RST) European countries (UK, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Portugal, and Spain). Offeror demonstrates prime/team members have Host Nation Agreements, licenses, and familiar with the Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Document (OEBGD) or country-specific Final Governing Standards (FGS).

(c) Offeror provides a map or graphic depicting the Offeror and/or Team members’ office locations in the USAFE Regional Support Team (RST) European countries (UK, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) and demonstrate presence in four (4) of the six (6) European countries.

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the government’s confidence in the Offerors ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints.

(a) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments, as listed below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(b) Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance Confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relative order of importance stated in paragraph B, Evaluation Criteria. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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. This information may include data on efforts performed by other subsidiaries, divisions or subcontractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort.

(1) 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 substantially complete (80%) or must have been completed during the past five (5) years prior to the issue date of the solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(2) Relevance Assessment.

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the ESC-USAFE technical sub-factors and price factor. The relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the ESC-USAFE technical sub-factors and price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to criteria such as similarity, complexity, diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope, value, and performance period as they relate to the scope of the ESC-USAFE PWS. A relevance determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s), Team members. The Past Performance Information (PPI) and additional information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevance of past performance. It is advantageous to the Offeror to present projects that have been largely performed by the Team member for whom the project is being submitted. Higher relevance will be assessed for projects that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed for ESC-USAFE. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevance.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevance when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

(3) Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the ESC-USAFE Technical Sub-factors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.) The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. 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:

QUALITY ASSESSMENT

RATING/COLOR

DEFINITION

(c) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevance and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on combined recency, relevance, and performance ratings for each of the projects. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the ESC USAFE requirements and cost/price factor, 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 relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no 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 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 past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

3. Factor 3 – Price

The Government will use the Price Model in Attachment L-10 to formulate TEPs of all Offerors for comparison purposes per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i). The TEP will be the only discriminator among Offerors for the price factor. Price will be evaluated for price reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 1.2.3 below.

3.1. Price Reasonableness - Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 is anticipated to determine price reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each Offeror’s TEP to satisfy the requirement mandated by FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price reasonableness will be determined based on the comparison of each Offeror’s TEP to the average TEP from all technically acceptable proposals.

3.2. Unbalanced Pricing - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the proposed rates or other labor categories (either of the Offeror’s proposal or the same labor categories as proposed by other Offerors). The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year or above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.3. Price Model - Proposed Home Office and Field fully-burdened Firm Fixed Price (FFP) labor rates shall be inserted into the price model by the Offeror, which when applied to the predetermined labor hours, will calculate a total price for each labor category. An Offeror’s price for the price model will be calculated by multiplying the proposed FFP fully-burdened hourly rates against the respective labor hours associated with each labor category. All fully burdened individual labor categories will then be totaled to arrive at the Offeror’s TEP for the price model. The labor category fully burdened rates to be inserted into the price model will be the simple average of the rates proposed for each of the Government’s eight (8) fiscal years.

(a) Home Office and Field fully burdened FFP labor rates for each Offeror and Team member as proposed in the Rate Tables in accordance with Section L, Paragraph 5.2.1 will be incorporated into the basic contract and shall be the maximum labor rates to be used at the task order level for both competitive and single source requirements.

(b) The Government has developed a price model that is representative of the types of task orders that may be issued under this basic contract. The price model was developed based upon past experience. The model includes labor categories and associated labor hours as predetermined by the CO.

3.4 FAR 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993) (a) Re-competition of service contracts may in some cases result in lowering the compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) paid or furnished professional employees. This lowering can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance. It is therefore in the Government’s best interest that professional employees, as defined in 29 CFR 541, be properly and fairly compensated. As part of their proposals, Offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

(b) The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

(c) The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

(d) Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

C. SOLICIATION 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 sub-factors. 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.

SECTION M – FA8903-14-R-0018