FA8903-15-R-0023_Draft_Section_M_01232015.docx

FA8903-15-R-0023

21 Jan 2015

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DRAFT SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 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 contract will 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 seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. 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 and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost 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.

The contracting officer will conduct this source selection using a phased evaluation process which is sometimes referred to as a “down-select.” To make the process more efficient, the contracting officer is limiting the amount of information that Offerors must submit initially. Phase I includes Volume I (Contract Documentation) and Volume II (Technical) which includes the offerors Managerial Approach and Past Performance Information. Phase I will be used by the contracting officer to determine the competitive range. The contracting officer shall notify offerors promptly in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be sent to offerors within the competitive range as needed. Those offerors considered by the Contracting Officer to be within the competitive range will be asked to submit the Volume III (Pricing) and Volume IV (Sample Task Order) in Phase II of this source selection. The same adjectival ratings from Table 2 – TECHNINCAL RATINGS and Table 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS will be applied to all evaluation factors and subfactors in both Phase I and Phase II. The relative importance of all Factors and Subfactors is the same in both Phase I and Phase II. See paragraph M002 a. (2) on page 6 of this document.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one (1) requirements contract for the BRAC Environmental Services, Western Region Program.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP: N/A

d. Discussions 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 Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS – PHASE I (Down-Select Criteria)

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Managerial Approach (Technical): The criteria is met when the Offeror submits a sound, realistic and comprehensive management plan that addresses the Offerors ability to manage multiple, concurrent task orders and commence onsite field activities within 48 hours of a task order award, or Notice to Proceed, if required.

Subfactor 1.1: Demonstrate ability to rapidly respond and begin on-site remediation activities within 48 hours of Task Order Award or Notice to Proceed.

Subfactor 2.1: Demonstrate ability to manage multiple/concurrent TOs throughout the region.

Factor 2 – Relevant Experience and Past Performance: The Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) Rating is based on an integrated assessment of relevancy and performance of the submitted project summaries. In addition, based on the nature of the PCA, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror in the project summaries and data obtained from other sources in conducting the assessment.

The Offeror must ensure submission of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) which are based on the following: 1) Cost Control and Cost-Effective Performance; 2) Quality Control with Contract Specifications and Schedules; 3) Schedule Control; 4) Compliance with Laws and Regulations; and, 5) Performance.

The Government may contact references for the identified projects and/or contracts at the Government’s discretion. The Government may also take into consideration relevant information other than, and independent of, the Offeror’s submission for this Factor. Relevant means of a nature similar to the efforts addressed under this solicitation in terms of similarity in size, scope, and technical and regulatory complexity.

Subfactor 2.1: Demonstrate relevant Environmental Remediation experience at military installations in the Western Region (Recent, Relevant & Quality).

Subfactor 2.2: Demonstrate relevant experience working with Western Region EPA/state regulators and LRAs (Recent, Relevant & Quality).

Subfactor 2.3: Demonstrate a record of successful performance. Successful means at least a satisfactory quality rating.

PHASE II – Volume III (Pricing) and Volume IV (Sample Task Order)

Factor 3: Cost/Pricing: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Pricing Matrices for price reasonableness and completeness. A proposal is complete when all cost/price data, as outlined in this solicitation has been submitted in the required format. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness through the use of price analysis. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques include, but are not limited to, comparison of pricing received in response to the solicitation and/or comparison of proposed pricing with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). An Offeror whose submits a price proposal that is determined to be unreasonable, either initially or as a result of discussions, is not awardable and will be eliminated from the competition. Price Matrices are included in the solicitation as the following Section L Attachments:

Attachment #2a – Deliverables Firm Fixed Price Model Attachment #2b – Unit Pricing Matrix Attachment #2c – Labor Categories and Rates Tables

SAMPLE TASK ORDER (STO)

STO Factor 1: Managerial Approach

Subfactor 1.1- Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): The criteria are met when the Offeror submits a sound and realistic activity-based schedule.

At a minimum, Offeror’s Integrated Master Schedule must:

· Outline key activities and milestones defined at the appropriate level and logically-sequenced to support and manage SOW requirements, consistent with the narrative discussion of the approach in the proposal.

· Demonstrate ability to meet SOW requirements within the time designated.

· Effectively identify the critical path items affecting the ability to meet the proposed schedule.

· Demonstrate logical incorporation of Government and Regulatory review periods for deliverables while meeting or exceeding any applicable agreements or regulatory schedule requirements.

· Clearly identify roles and responsibilities for key personnel including subcontractors, and other relevant team members and provide an organizational chart.

· Demonstrate effective and efficient management of the work in order to meet the requirements of the SOW.

· Demonstrate effective communication between stakeholders (Air Force, Contractor, State/Local Representatives)

· Demonstrate acceptable performance of quality services and quality submission of deliverables.

· Demonstrate efficient and effective management of team members and subcontractors.

STO Factor 2 - Technical Approach: The criteria are met when the Offeror submits a comprehensive technical approach consistent with SOW requirements. The Government will evaluate this factor based on the following subfactors:

Subfactor 2.1 - Understanding of the Work: The criteria are met when the Offeror submits a comprehensive, realistic, integrated, and efficient approach that is consistent with the SOW and provides an explanation of how the requirements of the SOW and other applicable agreements will be met while ensuring protection of human health and the environment and ensuring regulatory compliance.

Subfactor 2.2 - Risk Management Approach: The criteria is met when the Offeror demonstrates logical and reasonable elimination or mitigation strategies for addressing the identified risks associated with the project and proposed technical approach.

STO Factor 3 - Cost/Price: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) for price completeness and reasonableness. In addition the Government may conduct a realism analysis to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement. A proposal is complete when all cost/price data, as outlined in this solicitation has been submitted in the required format. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness through the use of price analysis. Price realism analysis (if performed) will measure the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements; therefore, the Government may reject any proposal evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or unrealistically low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.. The WBS narrative and pricing narrative will be used by the technical and price evaluation team to determine whether the Offeror’s technical approach in comparison to the prices proposed on the Price Proposal Summary/Roll-up Sheets are complete and accurately reflect the requirements proposed.

Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness through the use of price analysis. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques include, but are not limited to, comparison of proposed Total Evaluated Prices (TEPs) received in response to the solicitation and/or comparison of proposed TEPs with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). The TEP consists of the total price offered to perform the requirement (Price Proposal Summary/Roll-up Sheets). An Offeror who submits a price proposal that is determined to be unreasonable, either initially or as a result of discussions, is not awardable and will be eliminated from the competition.

Subcontract costs will be the primary elements to undergo specific evaluation per each Offeror's price proposal. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a realistic price. Some of those techniques include, but are not limited to, comparison of proposed costs received in response to the solicitation, a rough yardstick methodology to highlight any significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry, comparison of proposed costs with the IGE. The review will assess the adequacy of the basis used in support of proposed direct labor rates and subcontract costs. The technical team will evaluate each Offeror's proposed adequacy/mixture of subcontracts.

(2) Relative Importance of all Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Past Performance is more important than Technical which is more important than Cost/Price. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are: significantly more important than cost or price. The relative importance of all Factors and Subfactors is the same for both Phase I and Phase II.

b. Technical Factors The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor. These two ratings are applicable to all the Technical subfactors i.e., the subfactors under the Managerial Approach in both Volume II and Volume IV of this solicitation (see Table 2.2 Proposal Organization in Section L).

(2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

c. Relevant Experience and Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the PCAs described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. 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 relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. 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 and at least 50% complete or must have been performed during the past 3 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 performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference M002a). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or sub-contractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The PPQs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

(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 performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors 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 all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated PCA rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting PCA 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 performance will have a greater impact on the PCA 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.

e. Cost or Price Factor

(1) The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated at prices proposed in the Pricing Matrices in Volume III and the sample task order, as applicable.

(2) Reasonableness: The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(3) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to deliverable/unit prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.