Section_M_Step_2_Eval_for_Award_10_Oct_2017.pdf

Step 2 - Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Repair Cadet Chapel, USAFA, FA8903-17-R-0071

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR REPAIR

USAFA CADET CHAPEL, UNITED STATES AIR

FORCE ACADEMY, CO

SOLICITATION NO. FA8903-17-R-0071

STEP TWO

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTICE: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated in full text:

52.217-05 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by evaluating the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP consists of combined total of the basic construction requirement, payment/performance bonds, and all options. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

(a) Offerors shall submit all Volumes in accordance with Step 2 - Section L to be evaluated for award. The Government will review the Contract Volume to ensure it is complete and that it correlates, as applicable, with other Volumes. Failure to provide a complete Contract Volume may make Offeror noncompliant and ineligible for award.

(b) Only those team members that provided proof of signed Joint Venture Agreements/Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent (LOI)s as stated in the ITO will be evaluated.

(c) While the Government source selection evaluation team and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(d) 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) FAR site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

(e) The Government will utilize a two-step evaluation process to award a single contract to the Offeror who provides the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors.

(1) Step 1 will be a prequalification of sources in accordance with DFARS 236.272. In Step 1, the Government will ask for qualifications/past performance in order to evaluate and prequalify sources to perform the project to Repair Cadet Chapel. Price will not be evaluated as part of Step 1. The Government will shortlist up to five (5) of the highest rated Step 1 Offerors to compete for contract award in Step 2.

(2) In Step 2 of the two-step selection procedure, the Offerors that were prequalified in Step 1 will be requested by the Government to submit proposals that include technical and price information. Those Offerors selected for Step 2 received an Amendment to the RFP requesting a technical and price proposal for Step 2 criteria. The objective of Step 2 will be to evaluate and award a contract to the single responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. Step 2 will utilize subjective tradeoff (comparative analysis to determine best value IAW solicitation criteria). Only Step 2 technical criteria and price will be utilized in the final comparative analysis for the award decision. Offerors must submit a complete Step 2 proposal to be considered for award. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire proposal being rejected. The Procuring Contracting Officer will award one contract to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ 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 who is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government.

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 of the higher price Offeror outweighs the price difference.

(f) Each factor will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis submitted for each individual factor will only be evaluated for the factor for which it was submitted (no-cross referencing).

2.0 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 technically Unacceptable on any Factor will be deemed unawardable. Additionally, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) will be reviewed and included in the responsibility determination for the apparent successful Offeror. Initial proposals with an OCI that is incapable of being mitigated may be deemed unawardable.

3.0 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Repair Cadet Chapel.

M002 STEP 2 EVALUATION FACTORS

4.0 Step 2 Evaluation Factors

(a) The following evaluation factors 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 described below.

Technical Factor 1: Project Management Approach Technical Factor 2: Schedule and Time Management Plan Technical Factor 3: Organizational and Communications Plan Factor 4: Small Business Participation Commitment Document Factor 5: Price

Relative Importance of Factors. Factors 1 and 2 are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 3 and 4 will evaluated using acceptable or unacceptable ratings and will not be included in the trade off process. Factor 5 is the least important factor. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all traded off evaluation factors (Factors 1 and 2) other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(b) A proposal is not awardable if it contains any Unacceptable Ratings.

TABLE 1/STEP 2: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTOR

VOLUME FACTOR TITLE EVALUATION RELATIVE

IMPORTANCE

II 1 Project Management Approach

Subjective Tradeoff Most Important

II 2 Schedule and Time Management Plan

Subjective Tradeoff Second Most Important

II 3 Organizational and Communications Plan

Acceptable / Unacceptable

Not Traded

III 4 Small Business Participation Commitment Document

Acceptable / Unacceptable

Not Traded

IV 5 Price Subjective Tradeoff Least Important

4.1 Technical/Risk Rating (Step 2 Factors 1 and 2)

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the technical factor requirements. Technical Factors 1 and 2 will each receive one of the combined technical/risk ratings will receive one (1) of the ratings depicted below in, Table 2/Step 2 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

TABLE 2/STEP 2. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

COLOR

RATING

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

TABLE 2.1/STEP 2 DEFINITIONS

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS DEFINITIONS

Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

4.2 Technical Rating/Acceptable or Unacceptable (Step 2, Factor 3) The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Organizational and Communication Plan proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Technical Factor 3 will receive one of the ratings depicted below in Table 3/Step 2.

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.

Significant Weakness

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

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.

TABLE 3/STEP 2 - TECHNICAL RATING (Factor 3)

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

4.3 Small Business Participation Commitment Document Rating/Acceptable or Unacceptable (Step 2, Factor 4) The Government will evaluate the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the contract. Factor 4 will receive one of the ratings depicted below in Table 4/Step 2.

TABLE 4/STEP 2 - TECHNICAL RATING (Factor 4)

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

4.4 Price (Factor 5)

Price will not be rated or scored but evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and completeness utilizing the information provided in the Offeror’s price proposal.

5.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

5.1 Technical Factor 1 - Project Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s project management approach as follows:

(a) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Project Management Approach carefully considers the unique aspects/specialized scope elements of the Repair Cadet Chapel project from a holistic perspective starting with turnover of chapel to Offeror and concluding with return of a historically accurate facility which has successfully implemented the Section 106 regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act. An acceptable Project Management Approach will realistically address Offeror’s processes (e.g. procedures, techniques, methods) to include protection of historic structures, fabrication and submittal of replaced in kind historical components, construction access approach, quality control, change management, and risk management. Identification of and planning for the unique challenges of the Repair Cadet Chapel project may receive a more favorable evaluation than an outline of generic project management procedures. Narratives that provide anecdotal information (lessons learned) from relevant experience of similarly complex projects that have specific application to the unique aspects of the Repair Cadet Chapel project may receive greater consideration.

(1) Protection of Historic Structures: An acceptable proposal will include an Offeror’s demonstrated methodology for working within and adjacent to historic structures and features.

The explanation shall address key management approaches, policies, and procedures in place.

Greater consideration may be given to the extent that the Offeror’s proposal specifically addresses the protection required for this historically significant building. Greater consideration may be given to narratives that include critical lessons learned from similar historic projects provided those lessons are applicable to challenges anticipated on this project.

(2) Fabrication and Submittal of Replaced in Kind Historical Components: An acceptable proposal will include the Offerors demonstrated methodology for fabricating and submittal of replaced in kind historical components. The explanation shall address key management approaches, policies, and procedures in place. Greater consideration may be given to the extent that the Offeror’s proposal specifically addresses the fabrication and submittal of replaced in kind historical components required for this historically significant building. Greater consideration may be given to narratives that include critical lessons learned from similar historic projects provided those lessons are applicable to challenges anticipated on this project.

(3) Construction Access Approach: An acceptable proposal will describe the means of access to all work areas for equipment, labor, and materials. Identifies lift handling equipment as planned for elevated access above grade (e.g. building envelope). Provides site layout for load handling equipment and scaffolding or other aerial work platforms. The narrative should discuss the unique challenges of this project as you understand them and how the Offeror will overcome the risks associated with these challenges. Greater consideration may be given for plans showing realistic access to the complete building envelope.

(4) Quality Control: An acceptable proposal will include the Offeror’s demonstrated ability and project-specific plan to manage construction coordination and construction 3-phase quality control. Descriptions of the document technical review process tailored to the unique scope of work and stakeholder groups involved with the Repair Cadet Chapel project will be given greater consideration. Specific examples showing effective submittals reviews, compliance with contract documents, construction completion, testing and inspections, commissioning and documentation will receive additional consideration. Narratives describing a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan/program that is tailored to the Repair Cadet Chapel project may be given greater consideration than a listing of generic best practices.

(5) Change Management: An acceptable proposal shall include the Offeror’s approach for deployment of project-specific management protocols and their demonstrated effectiveness in keeping the quantity of change orders – regardless of costs – to a minimum will (or may) receive greater consideration. Specific examples of successful implementation of these protocols on similarly complex projects may receive greater consideration.

(6) Risk Management: An acceptable proposal shall include the Offeror’s that propose a project-specific plan to manage (e.g., avoid, mitigate, transfer, accept) identified and significant risks associated with this project to include without limitation: (1) working on a secured site with restricted access and limited staging; (2) maintaining access and continuity of operations adjacent and within occupied, functional buildings; (3) working within a historic structure; and

(4) protecting in place operating utility systems throughout the duration of the project and (5) any other risks that are identified by the Offeror as significant may receive greater consideration.

Greater consideration may be given to successful management of similar risks and proactive problem solving in projects of similar complexity.

Note: When an Offeror submits its proposal in response to the RFP, and that proposal contains any work, materials, methods or other type of betterment that provides an advantage to the Government that is above the minimum requirements contained in the RFP, the terms of the proposal will be the basis for evaluation and, if successful, will become the terms of the contract upon award. If a change in one of those terms is made to one that is less favorable to the Government than the one on which the award of the contract was based, a credit to the Government will be negotiated by the contractor. Only the Procuring Contracting Officer has the authority to negotiate a change to the terms of the contract.

5.2 Technical Factor 2 -Schedule and Time Management Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s schedule and time management plan as follows:

(a) An acceptable schedule and narrative will address the constraints, deadlines, and milestones described in the submission requirements in a way that demonstrates a reasonable, rational approach to execution of the project to meet the period of performance contractual requirements.

(b) An Offeror may receive greater consideration for a schedule and narrative containing a high level of detailed activities to demonstrate that the schedule has a high likelihood of successful project completion within the proposed overall contract. Such demonstration may include:

(1) incorporation of detailed project activities in schedule and narrative;

(2) consideration of the unique aspects of this project in schedule and narrative;

(3) planning for execution of overlapping activities in constrained spaces and planned facility access means in schedule and narrative;

(4) realistic phasing of construction sequencing to enable access for all construction trades and labor pools in schedule and narrative;

(5) description of innovative schedule control strategies used to recover from delays in narrative; and

(6) description of construction delay recovery processes successfully used in prior projects, citing specific project examples in narrative. Proposed processes must be relevant to this project.

Note: When an Offeror submits its proposal in response to the RFP, and a schedule for the performance of the work on the project is a required submittal, the terms of the proposed schedule will become the schedule that will be utilized for completion of the project, adjusted as necessary to reflect the actual award date and issue date of the Notice to Proceed.

5.3 Technical Factor 3 - Organizational and Communications Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s organization and communications plan as follows:

(a) Acceptable: The proposal includes an acceptable Organizational and Communication Plan that is supported with the following information:

(1) Organizational: A diagrammatic organizational matrix or flowchart using charts and matrices that comprehensively illustrates overall organizational structure to include all team elements, consultants/subcontractors/installers, and clearly depict key personnel positions; and

(2) Communications: A Communication protocols illustrate enhanced communications between the Offeror, Government, other team members, and the public, in an intuitive manner , providing traceability, allowing decisions to be made at a realistic and low level, and providing for rapid notification and elevation of critical issues.

(b) Unacceptable: The proposal does not include an acceptable Organizational and Communication Plan that is not supported with the following information:

(1) Organizational: A diagrammatic organizational matrix or flowchart using charts and matrices that comprehensively illustrates overall organizational structure to include all team elements, consultants/subcontractors/installers, and clearly depict key personnel positions; and

(2) Communications: Communication protocols illustrate enhanced communications between the Offeror, government, other team members, and the public in an intuitive manner, providing traceability, allowing decisions to be made at a realistic and low level, and providing for rapid notification and elevation of critical issues.

5.4 Factor 4 - Small Business Participation Commitment Document: The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will be evaluated on a best effort based upon the proposed subcontracting goals listed in Section L as Acceptable or Unacceptable and will not be part of the tradeoff determination. A proposal rated as ‘unacceptable’ under Volume III/Factor 4 will be ineligible for award, even if the proposal is rated as ‘outstanding’ for the other evaluation factors.

5.5 Factor 5 - Price: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price as follows:

(a) The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s price proposal for reasonableness, balance, and completeness utilizing the information provided in the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Summary Sheet. Price will not be rated or scored.

(1) Reasonableness: 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. 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). 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 TEP received in response to the solicitation and/or comparison of proposed TEP with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). Price reasonableness may also be evaluated based upon a comparison of the TEPs amongst all Offerors. The TEP is the total price to perform the requirement (submitted on Attachment L2-2, TEP Summary Sheet). The TEP consists of the combined total price to perform the basic construction requirement, payment/performance bonds, and all options. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The TEP will be utilized to make the subjective tradeoff best value award decision.

(2) Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Price. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between CLINs. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

(3) Completeness: A proposal is complete when all price data as outlined in the RFP/solicitation, in the required format, has been submitted. All CLINs must be completed and the total must be mathematically correct and rounded to the nearest dollar.

(b) Unreasonable, unbalanced, or incomplete pricing, either initially or after discussions are conducted, may cause a proposal to be determined non-compliant and/or unawardable.

M003 SOLICITATION 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. 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.