20191024_Section_M_Draft_RFP.pdf

DRAFT Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Environmental Construction and Optimization Services (BECOS)

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance, and Price. A contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Utilization (applicable to Galena AK Region only), and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation for each region.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award six (6) individual single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts, one (1) per region to support the BRAC environmental restoration program. Offerors may be selected for award of one (1), or a maximum of two (2) regions for which they propose.

1.2 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation the “correction potential” of any deficiency. Judgement such as “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.3 Discussions

It is the intent of the Government to award a contract without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of proposals. Communications and/or exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals IAW FAR 52.215-1.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

2.0 Evaluation Factors for Award

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 – Small Business Participation (Galena only) Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Price

2.1 Relative Importance

The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Small Business Participation Commitment (Galena only), Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance. Being that Factor 1 (Small Business Participation Commitment) is only applicable to Galena, Factor 1 for Galena will be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable. Factor 2 (Past Performance) will then be most important and Factor 3 (Price) will be least important for the remaining installations.

3.0 Factor 1 – Small Business (Galena only)

The Contracting Officer will evaluate the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the contract. The requirements of this factor are met when the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of a valid corporate commitment in providing small business participation performance under the contract.

Small Business Participation Commitment - Acceptable/ Unacceptable Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

3.1 Determination of Responsibility

Even though the assessment of Past Performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, information obtained as part of the proposal evaluation process will be used to support the Determination of Responsibility for the successful Offeror(s). If the Contracting Officer determines a small business to be non-responsible, the Contracting Officer will refer the matter to the Small Business Administration which will decide whether to issue a Certificate of Competency (see FAR 9.104-3 and FAR 19.6).

4.0 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to provide BRAC Environmental Construction Optimization Services that meet the requirements of the PWS, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of recent, relevant and overall quality of past performance information that pertains to the product or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

a) Recency Assessment: Offerors shall provide recent past performance information (PPI). To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. For present or ongoing efforts, the Offeror must have been performing the effort for at least 12 months from the date of issuance of the solicitation.

b) Relevancy Assessment: PPI not determined recent will not be evaluated for relevancy. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent PPI obtained to determine how closely the effort performed under those projects relate to this acquisition. The Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and additional information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevance of past performance.

For recent PPI reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. Relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with the relevancy matrix located in Attachment 4.

Consideration will be given to criteria such as similarity, complexity, and diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope, value, geographic dispersion, and performance period. Higher relevance will be assessed for projects that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, described in this solicitation. Higher relevancy will be assessed to projects greater than $5,000,000. Higher relevancy will be assess to projects more complex in nature. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevance.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government will use the relevancy criteria provided in the table below:

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) Quality. Performance Quality Assessment. Quality will not be assessed for PPI deemed

Not relevant IAW Attachment 4 Relevancy Matrix. The Government will only consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent and relevant PPI 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 all PPI available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as PPI 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 PPI 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/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 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.

d) The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on (1) the references provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources (PPIRS, CPARS, etc.). Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse PPI to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

The Government will consider present/past performance information in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis.

e) Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to provide BRAC Environmental Construction and Optimization Services that meet the requirements of the PWS, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in the table below. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. Clearly demonstrating management actions employed in overcoming problems allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate.

For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support an Offeror has overcome past problems. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Performance Confidence will be evaluated in accordance with the following Table:

Adjectival 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.

Neutral Confidence 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.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

5.0 Factor 3 – Cost/Price

Price Evaluation

a. The prices for up to two (2) separate Pricing Volumes submitted in Offerors proposal, one (1) for each region proposed, up to two (2) of the six (6) regions will be evaluated for Completeness, Reasonableness, Balance, and Professional Compensation Plan realism.

b. Task Order 2 Pricing, submitted by region, will be evaluated for sites that are priced for a base year, nine (9) option periods and a six (6) month extension. The base year’s period of performance will occur in fiscal year (FY) one (1), option periods one (1) through nine (9), if exercised, will occur in FYs two (2) through ten (10) respectively. The Government anticipates inclusion of Performance Based Payments (PBP) for XXXX CLINs in all six (6) regions. The Government will evaluate the proposed PBP arrangement event prices as provided in the Task Order Model. PBP event prices will be automatically totaled and included in the TEP for each region.

c. Each work Site (CLIN) will be totaled for the base year, each option period and the six

(6) month extension (automatically calculated to ½ of the final year's proposed prices) and then combined to develop the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

d. If Offeror is awarded a contract, the Not to Exceed (NTE) Fully Burdened FFP Labor Rates proposed in the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Table, Attachment 6, will be incorporated at award into the basic contract.

e. Evaluation of option years shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

f. Price analysis will be conducted for each Offeror’s proposal. The pricing techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b) may be used, singly or in combination with others, to ensure that Offerors price proposal is complete, reasonable, balanced, and the Professional Compensation Plan(s) are realistic.

Review of Offerors’ Prices will consist of the following:

Completeness

A proposal is complete when all pricing data required under Section L of the RFP is provided in the format prescribed.

Price Reasonableness

a. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 is anticipated to determine price reasonableness.

b. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each Offeror’s regional Task Order (2) Model Total Evaluated Price (TEP), up to two (2) regions.

c. For evaluation purposes only, the Total Proposed Price (TPP) for each Offeror’s proposed regional FFP Fully Burdened Labor Rate Tables will be evaluated for reasonableness.

d. If discussions are held and a competitive range is determined, only remaining Offerors will continue to be evaluated.

e. If the contracting officer determines there is insufficient data to determine the price reasonable, the contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques and procedures per FAR 15.404-1(b) as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

f. The overall proposed TEP and TPP must be reasonable to both the Government and the Offeror. 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. A determination of unreasonably high TEP or TPP may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.

Task Order (2) Model

a. The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of the Task Order (2) Model, by region, for reasonableness.

b. The Government anticipates inclusion of Performance Based Payments (PBP) for XXXX CLINs in all six (6) regions. The Government will evaluate proposed PBP events, completion criteria and event values.

c. The six month extension tab and amounts will be removed (deleted) at award of the task order, should Offeror be awarded a contract.

Fully Burdened Labor Rate Table

For evaluation purposes only, the Government will evaluate the TPP for each proposed regional Fully Burdened Labor Rate Table. NTE Fully Burdened Labor rates identified in the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Tables will be proposed for the base year and all out-years. The TPP amounts and calculations will be removed (deleted) prior to the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Table being incorporated into the basic contract should Offeror be awarded a contract.

Balanced 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. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, 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. Unbalanced pricing at the task order pricing level exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, there is a significant difference between proposed tasks and/or site price as well as prices proposed in the performance based payments arrangement. Unbalanced fully burdened labor rates exist when, despite an acceptable total proposed price, there is a significant difference between proposed rates 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 Evaluation (IAW FAR 52.222-46) For evaluation purposes only, Offerors proposals will be evaluated to determine compliance with the provisions at FAR 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993). Failure to demonstrate a realistic Professional Compensation Plan may render a proposal ineligible for award on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or proposed unrealistically low professional compensation.

6.0 VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required under the Contract Documentation volume. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range.