FA8903-15-R-0023_Section_M_20151027.pdf

18 Aug 2015

FA8903-15-R-0023

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

A. Basis for Contract Award This will be a best value 100% Small Business Set Aside source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented. The regulation is available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government seeks to award to the responsible Offeror with the greatest probability of meeting all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and other information required by Section L.

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 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. The same adjectival ratings from Table 2 – TECHNICAL RATINGS and Table 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS will be applied to all applicable evaluation factors and subfactors in this evaluation.

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

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

D. Discussions The Government may conduct discussions during the evaluation period, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. 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 may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Offerors response to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 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 all evaluation factors and subfactors.

Factor 1: 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/Notice To Proceed if required. The Sample Task Order will be evaluated to determine the Offerors ability to manage risk and develop an approach for performance IAW the SOW.

Subfactor 1.1: Managerial Approach: The criteria are met when the Offeror demonstrates the ability to rapidly respond and begin on-site remediation activities within 48 hours of Task Order Award/Notice to Proceed and the ability to manage multiple/concurrent TOs throughout the region.

Subfactor 1.2: Sample Task Order (STO): The criteria are met when the Offeror submits a comprehensive technical approach consistent with SOW requirements. The Government will evaluate this subfactor based on the submission of a comprehensive, realistic, integrated, and efficient approach that includes risk management strategies and is consistent with the SOW. The STO approach must include 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.

Factor 2: Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the Offerors past performance for recency, relevancy, and performance quality. This factor is met when the Offeror demonstrates team experience IAW the scope presented in the SOW as represented by submitted projects conducted within three (3) years of the date of the solicitation. The Government will not consider nor evaluate past performance on an Offerors submission concluded more than three (3) years prior to the date of the solicitation. For projects, contracts, and TOs that are actively being performed, performance must be a minimum of 50% complete as of the date of solicitation for this contract. The submitted projects shall be of a nature similar to the efforts addressed under this solicitation in terms of size, scope, and technical and regulatory complexity IAW the requirements outlined in the SOW. Past Performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned a rating based on the Offerors quality of performance.

Factor 3: Price: The Government will evaluate the Offerors pricing for completeness, reasonableness, realism and balance. A proposal is complete when all cost/price data, as outlined in the solicitation has been submitted in the required format. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Price realism analysis is used to determine the Offerors understanding of the requirement. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Labor rates and the STO will be evaluated for reasonableness and price realism through the use of price/cost analysis techniques. Cost realism analysis will be conducted at the task order level if/when a CPFF Task Order is issued. IAW FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure fair and reasonable prices. 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 an Independent Government Estimate (IGE). A price proposal that is determined to be too high or too low, either initially, or as a result of discussions, is not awardable and may be eliminated from the competition.

The solicitation includes the following Section L Attachment:

Attachment # L-2 – FFP Labor Categories and Labor Rates

THE EVALUATION PROCESS

A. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Selection shall be made on a “Tradeoff” basis. 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: Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Management Approach Subfactor 1.2: Sample Task Order

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: In descending order of importance, Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance. IAW FAR 15.304(e)(1), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

B. Technical Factors (Factor 1) The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: Technical and Technical Risk Ratings. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offerors solution to the requirement. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. The ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, 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

Rating Description

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. Past Performance (Factor 2) The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offerors probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

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

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

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.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

2) Evaluation Process.

The past performance evaluation considers each Offerors 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 Offerors recent past performance. 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 and/or non-Government sources, such as any commercial business or customers referenced by the Offeror in any of the past performance information disclosed.

(a) 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 or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. For projects/contracts/TOs that are actively being performed, performance must be a minimum of 50% complete as of the date of solicitation for this contract. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) 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 BECSRC Western requirements. For each recent past performance project summary reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition.

Higher Relevancy ratings may be given to projects that include:

• Environmental remediation projects at BRAC installations

• Experience in the regulatory environment of EPA Regions 9 and 10

• Efforts focused on interim rapid response (time-sensitive) e.g., spill response, removal of previously unknown environmental or physical hazard, and disposal of contaminated material

A relevancy determination of the Offerors 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 subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires (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):

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

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

(c) 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 all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of 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 RATINGS/COLORS

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

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.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Unknown.

(d) 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 C (1) 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 past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

D. PRICING (Factor 3)

Price will be a consideration in the selection decision. Price analysis will be conducted for each Offeror’s proposal. The Government will review the Offerors price proposal for completeness, reasonableness, realism and balance. The following applies to that evaluation:

a. The 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 will be proposed for the five (5) years for ordering plus two (2) additional years for performance. All individual labor category total prices will then be totaled to arrive at the Labor TEP for each Offeror. All labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

b. The Sample Task Order (STO) will apply to all Offerors. Proposed STO rates will be calculated to determine a total evaluated price for the STO. Offerors must use pricing from the FFP fully burdened hourly labor rate tables. All individual total prices in the STO will be totaled to arrive at the sample TO TEP for each Offeror.

The TEP will be rounded to the nearest penny.

The two TEPs developed above will be combined to make up each Offeror’s TEP and be used in the evaluation covered below.

Completeness The Government will review submitted proposals to ensure all cost/price data, as outlined in the solicitation has been submitted in the required format.

Reasonableness The Government will review prices submitted in the STO proposal, the Labor Rate Tables and the resultant combined TEP for Price Reasonableness. Pricing may be considered “unreasonable” if any specific unit price or if the TEP is significantly above the Government estimate or the median price of all Offerors for that specific element. Failure to provide reasonable prices may result in a proposal being rated unawardable.

Realism The Government will review prices submitted in the STO proposal, the Labor Rate Tables and the resultant combined TEP for Price Realism. Pricing will be considered “unrealistic” if any specific unit price or if the TEP is significantly below the Government estimate or the median price of all Offerors for that specific element. Failure to provide realistic prices may result in a proposal being rated unawardable on the basis that unrealistically low prices are an indication that the Offeror does not understand the requirements or intends to “buy-in” for an award at prices it will be unable to honor at the task order level.

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. Per FAR

52.215-1(f) (8), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Professional Compensation Plan (IAW FAR 52.222-46) Offerors proposals will be evaluated to determine if the provisions at FAR 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993) have been satisfied. Failure to meet the Professional Compensation Plan requirements may render your proposal ineligible for award.