USAFA_Cadet_Chapel_-_Draft_Section_M_Step_2_-_11Aug2017.pdf

Draft 8-11-2017

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 adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

OTHER SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

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.

(b) Only those team members that provided proof of signed Joint Venture Agreements 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 cost and non-cost 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 of the most competitive step 1 Offerors to compete for contract award in Step 2.

(2) Step 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 will receive 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 Contracting Officer will award one contract 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) http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ 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 cost difference.

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 unmitigatable OCI 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.

4.0 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M002 STEP 2 EVALUATION FACTORS

5.0 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: Organization and Communications Plan

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Commitment Document

Factor 5: Price

(b) Relative Importance of Factors. Factors 1 and 2 are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 3 and 4 will evaluated using acceptable/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 evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. 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 Organization 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

5.1 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 described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below:

TABLE 3/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.

5.2 Technical Rating/Acceptable/Unacceptable (Step 2, Factors 3 and 4) The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Technical factors 3 and 4 will receive one of the ratings depicted below.

TABLE 4/STEP 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS (Factors 3 and 4)

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

5.3 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.

6.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

6.1 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.

An acceptable Project Management Approach will realistically address quality, change management, risk management, protection of historic structures, and fabrication and submittal of replaced in kind historical components. 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) Construction Access Approach: Greater consideration may be given for plans showing realistic access to the complete building volume.

(2) Quality Control: Offeror’s demonstrated ability and project-specific plan to manage design coordination and construction 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 your

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.

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

(4) Risk Management: Offeror’s 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. Greater consideration may be given to successful management of similar risks and proactive problem solving in projects of similar complexity.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

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 Contracting Officer has the authority to negotiate a change to the terms of the contract.

6.2 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 feasible schedule. A feasible schedule would demonstrate an achievable approach by:

(1) incorporating detailed project activities;

(2) considering the unique aspects of this project;

(3) sequencing removal and installation of existing features / components such that removed items and items to remain are protected;

(4) planning execution of overlapping activities in constrained spaces and planned facility access means;

and

(5) realistically phasing construction sequencing to enable access for all construction trades and labor pools.

(c) Greater consideration may be given for narratives proposing innovative schedule control strategies used to recover from delays. Further consideration may be given to narratives that describe construction delay recovery processes you have used successfully, citing specific project examples. 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 issue date of the Notice to Proceed.

6.3 Technical Factor 3, Organization and Communications Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s organization and communications plan as follows:

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

(1) Organization: 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) Communication: A communication protocols that illustrates communications between the Offeror and the other team members is enhanced, intuitive to understand, provides traceability, allows decisions to be made at a realistic and low level, and provides for rapid escalation of critical issues.

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

(1) Organization: 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) Communication: A communication protocols that illustrates communications between the Offeror and the other team members is enhanced, intuitive to understand, provides traceability, allows decisions to be made at a realistic and low level, and provides for rapid escalation of critical issues.

6.4 Factor 4, Small Business Participation Commitment Document: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s small business participation plan as follows:

(a) Acceptable: The proposal includes an acceptable Small Business Participation Commitment Document that is supported with the following information:

(1) A percentage goal (% of subcontracted dollars) for each Small Business Category in the submission requirements.

(2) Proposal includes information that supports the level of commitment to use small businesses.

Supporting information may include; verbal agreements, commitment letters, identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform, mentor-protégé relationships, outreach programs, small business seminars, training certifications, or Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (ESRS) summary reports.

(b) Unacceptable: The proposal does not include a Small Business Participation Commitment Document.

No percentage goals. No supporting documents.

(c) Additional Important Notes Regarding FACTOR 2 – Small Business Participation Plan. Separate from the Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business Offerors must also submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219- 7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the Offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). Other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. FAR

19.702 implements the requirements of the Small Business Act for submission and negotiation of small business subcontracting plans. With respect to negotiated acquisitions, solicitations for contracts over a certain dollar threshold that have subcontracting possibilities “shall require the apparently successful Offeror” to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan, and if such Offeror fails to negotiate a plan acceptable to the contracting officer within the time limit set by the contracting officer, the Offeror will be ineligible for award. The acceptability of the apparent successful Offeror’s small business subcontracting plan is a matter of responsibility. The small business subcontracting plan of the apparently successful Offeror will be reviewed after the source selection decision but prior to award.

Subcontracting plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. The apparent successful Offeror, after its selection for award, may be directed or allowed to revise its small business subcontracting plan at any point prior to award. These additional submittals and reviews are not discussions as defined in FAR Part 15.

6.5 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 price proposal. 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 Total Evaluated Price (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 TEP amongst all Offerors. The TEP will be the only discriminator among Offerors for the Price Factor. The TEP is the total price to perform the requirement (submitted on Price Proposal Summary Sheet). The TEP consists of the total price to perform the requirement plus any 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. 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. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (CLIN)s is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. FAR § 15.404 1(g)(1).

(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.