ESC-PACAF_Draft_Section_M_22Apr16.pdf

PART IV- REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M – FA8903-16-R-0006

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

OTHER SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

A. SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURE

1. 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 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) FAR Site at http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall proposal, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past

Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who are 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 sub-factors to represent the best value to the

Government. The Government seeks to award to offeror(s) who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to higher rated, higher priced offeror(s), 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 higher price offeror(s) 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.

2. Discussions

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines discussions to be necessary. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any sub-factor will be deemed un-awardable.

3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award approximately five (5) contracts under this 100% competitive Small Business Set-

Aside Environmental Services and Construction (ESC) Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) 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 Offeror. The Government reserves the right to make more, fewer, or no 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 the SBA decides to do so. Failure to meet financial responsibility requirements will render the Offeror’s proposal not awardable.

5. Bonding

Offeror provides a brief narrative summary describing (1) the Prime’s total bonding capacity; (2) the Prime’s current excess bonding capacity; and (3) proof of surety information.

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) proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1 – Technical

Sub-factor 1.1 – Management Approach

Sub-factor 1.2 – Contract Execution Plan

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-factors. The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows:

Technical, Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the sub-factors are of equal importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined are significantly more important than price.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. Factor 1 – Technical

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 sub-factor.

(a) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution to the requirement. Each technical sub-factor will receive one of the ratings described in Table 1 – Technical

Ratings, below. The ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal. The

Technical Rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets, exceeds or does not meet the Technical sub-factor requirements. Sub-factor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall 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.

file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304

(b) 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 sub-factors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2 – Technical Risk

Ratings, 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 2 – 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.

Definitions for Deficiency, Strength, Weakness, and Significant Weakness as excerpted from DoD Source Selection

Procedures, Chapter 5 – Definitions:

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001

Strength

An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

Significant

Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001

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-PACAF PWS requirement on schedule and within budget IAW 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 demonstrating the Prime and all Team Members’ ability to manage the full scope of services specified in the ESC-PACAF PWS and a sound and comprehensive approach describing management of the communication processes including conflict resolution, distribution of responsibilities and allocation of projects among the Prime, Team Members and Subcontractors.

(1) Provides a narrative for concurrent project execution in the three major PACAF locations (Alaska, Hawaii/Pacific Islands, Japan/Korea). The Offeror’s narrative demonstrates how they will execute projects in each of the three geographically dispersed major PACAF locations (Alaska, Hawaii/Pacific Islands, Japan/Korea).

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

(3) Provides a diagram or graphic presenting the organizational chart and flow or lines of communication between Prime, Team Members, and Subcontractors.

1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Contract Execution Plan: The Offeror’s Contract Execution Plan will be evaluated to substantiate that the Offeror has demonstrated the Team’s ability to meet the ESC-PACAF PWS scope IAW requirements specified in Section L, paragraph 4.4.2. This sub-factor is met when the Offeror’s proposal presents a Contract Execution Plan that demonstrates at a minimum the following:

(a) A Contract Execution Plan for obtaining, developing and retaining sufficient, and qualified personnel over the period of performance (POP) of the entire contract in accordance with instructions in Section J

Attachment #2 and Section L Attachment L-1.

(1) The plan demonstrates the process to provide qualified, stable workforce with minimal turnover of personnel.

(2) Provides Prime/Team’s qualified key personnel as applicable in Attachment L-1.

(b) The Team’s Contract Execution Plan demonstrates how they will meet both typical and surge requirements under this contract in geographically dispersed locations in the three major PACAF locations (Alaska, Hawaii/Pacific Islands, Japan/Korea). The Offeror’s plan also details how the Team will obtain or if they have already obtained Host Nation Agreements and licenses. Finally, the plan demonstrates the Team’s familiarity with the Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Document

(OEBGD) or country-specific Final Governing Standards (FGS) or how the Team will become familiar with these documents and standards.

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements.

(a) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection (SS) Procedures, Table 5, excerpted below.

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.

(b) Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing products and 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 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, COs, 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 projects relate to this acquisition. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. Consideration will be given to criteria such as similarity, complexity, and diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope, value, geographic dispersion, and performance period in each of the three major PACAF locations

(Alaska, Hawaii/Pacific Islands, Japan/Korea). Projects must have an initial award value of at least $150K. The Government may consider higher relevancy ratings on projects that exceed the relevancy criteria and have a dollar value above $500K. A relevance determination of the

Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and Team Members. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror or Team Member whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) 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-PACAF. The

Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevance.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts IAW

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4:

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.

(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 all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation all past performance information available, regardless of its source. 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

DEFINITION

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

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)

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)

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

MARGINAL (M)

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)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) 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. Do not know.

(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. Offerors without a record of recent/ 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 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.

3. Factor 3 – Price

The Government will use the Price Model in Attachment L-9 to formulate each Offeror’s total evaluated price

(TEP) for comparison purposes per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The TEP will be the only discriminator among

Offerors for the price factor. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s pricing for completeness, reasonableness, and balance. 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, either initially, or as a result of discussions, is not awardable and may be eliminated from the competition. Cost Analysis/Cost Realism will be evaluated at the TO level.

3.1. Price 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.

3.2 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). 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. Pricing may be considered “unreasonable” if any specific unit price or if the TEP is significantly above the Government estimate or the average price of all Offerors for that specific element.

3.3. Unbalanced Pricing - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced proposal. 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. The Government will analyze proposal 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. An example of an unbalanced proposal 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 a proposal 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. A proposal may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.4. 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. 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 five (5) ordering years plus six (6) month option to extend services IAW FAR 52.217-8.

(a) Home Office and Field fully-burdened FFP labor rates for each Offeror and Team Member as proposed in the Rate Tables IAW Section L, Paragraph 6.2 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. Company information/policies concerning the application of home and field rates for the

Offeror and all Team Members will be incorporated into the basic contract and will be used at the task order (TO) level.

(b) The Government has developed a Price Model that is representative of the types of TOs that may be issued under this basic contract. The Price Model was developed based upon past experience. The Price

Model includes labor categories and associated labor hours as predetermined by the CO.