20200313_FA890320R0014_NorCal_BECOS_Section_M v3 Amendment 1.docx

FA8903-20-R-0014 Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

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), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/. 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. 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 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

Under this solicitation “FA8903-20-R-0014”, the Government plans to award one (1) single award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) basic contract for the BECOS program, NorCal region. In addition, two (2) initial task orders (TOs) are intended to be awarded as a part of this solicitation.

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 administrative 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 – Past Performance Factor 2 – Price

2.1 Relative Importance

The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 1 (Past Performance) is more important than Factor 2 (Price). IAW FAR 15.304(e), all other evaluation factors other than Price, when combined are significantly more important than price.

2.2 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).

3.0 Factor 1 – 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 and 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. The past performance evaluation will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, general trends in the offeror’s performance, the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the offeror's overall performance record.

3.1 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 365 days from the date of issuance of the solicitation.

3.2 Relevancy Assessment.

(a) 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.

(b) For recent PPI reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. Relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with the FA8903-20-R-0014 BECOS Relevancy Matrix, DoD standards, and criteria listed herein. 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 may be assessed for projects that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, described in this solicitation. Higher relevance may be assessed for projects greater than $5,000,000. Higher relevance may be assessed for projects more complex in nature. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevance.

(c) 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 also use the relevancy criteria provided in the table below.

Table 1 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival Rating

Description

3.3 Quality. Performance Quality Assessment.

(a) 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 (CPARS, etc.). 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.

(b) 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. 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. 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.

(c) The Government will consider present/past performance information in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. The Government will use the quality levels included on the Past Performance Questionnaire when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

3.6 Performance Confidence Assessment.

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

Table 3 Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

4.0 Factor 2 – Price

Price Evaluation Offerors shall identify region (NorCal) in the price volume, Task Order 2 Model, Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Fully Burdened Labor Rate (FBLR) Table and Compensation Plan Narrative and Excel Models.

Price volume proposals will be evaluated for Completeness, Price Reasonableness, Balance, and Professional Compensation Plan realism.

a. The price evaluation will include the combined Total Proposed Prices (TPPs) for the Task Order (2) Model and the FFP FBLR Table. The TPPs shall be combined on the Task Order (2) “Roll Up” tab to develop the region Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each Offeror. Prime Offerors must copy (move) the FFP FBLR Table Total Proposed Price (TPP) to the corresponding Task Order (2) Roll Up tab cell for inclusion in Offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for that region.

b. Task Order (2) FFP CLIN pricing, will be evaluated for both Non-Severable (NS) and severable performance. Severable CLINs will be for the base year and Fiscal Years (FY) 1 through nine (9) for the ten (10) year performance period. Performance Based Payment plans (PBPs) i.e. milestones, completion criteria and prices will be negotiated for each region with the successful offeror at the task order level.

c. FFP CLIN prices will be totaled for NS CLINS and the base year, each option period and the six (6) month extension (automatically calculated to ½ of the final year's proposed prices), and combined in order to develop the TPP for the FFP Task Order (2) Price Model.

d. The base year’s period of performance will occur in fiscal year (FY) one (1) (FY21), option periods one (1) through nine (9), if exercised, will occur in FYs two (2) through ten (10) respectively. All separately priced CLINs in each separate option year will be automatically totaled by CLIN type and option year and combined to develop the TPP for the Task Order (2) Price Model.

e. The regional FFP FBLR Table will be evaluated. Prime Offerors shall provide one (1) FFP FBLR Table by region for the entire team. Offerors may propose as a team (prime, teaming partners, and/or joint ventures) with each team member proposing separate FBLR tables (included as separate tabs in the team FFP FBLR Table). Each team member proposing FBLRs shall complete a separate FBLR tab in the FFP FBLR Table for that specific region. Prime Offerors shall ensure all team member tabs are included in the team FFP FBLR Table. All labor categories identified in the FFP FBLR Table shall be covered and proposed collectively by the prime and/or teaming partners. The FBLRs proposed by the team shall be Not to Exceed (NTE) Fully Burdened FFP labor rates for each LCAT for the ten (10) year performance period indicated in the each proposed regional FBLR tab.

f. All proposed FBLR tabs within the FFP FBLR Table will automatically average the proposed base year and all option year FBLRs by LCAT. The LCAT averages will then be automatically copied to the FBLR Table “Roll Up” tab for each team member. Prime Offeror shall ensure each team member’s average rates are correctly copied to the Roll Up tab. Team member average FBLRs will be averaged (average of the average) on the Roll Up tab by LCAT and multiplied by the evaluation hours for each LCAT to develop a price for each LCAT. LCAT prices will be automatically totaled to develop the FFP FBLR Table Total Proposed Price (TPP). Prime Offerors must copy (move) the FFP FBLR Table Total Proposed Price (TPP) for the proposed region to the corresponding TPP cell on the Roll Up tab of the regional Task Order (2) attachment for inclusion in Offerors Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for that region.

g. The team may propose one (1) team FBLR per LCAT for the entire team. If proposing as a team the FBLRs shall be entered in the prime tab of the FFP FBLR Table.

h. TEP will be evaluated for the proposed region.

i. If Offeror is awarded a contract, the Fully Burdened FFP Labor Rates proposed in the FFP FBLR Table, will be ceiling rates incorporated into the basic IDIQ at award. All average columns and the FBLR Roll Up tab will be removed (deleted) prior to the FFP FBLR Table being incorporated into the basic contract should Offeror be awarded a contract. It is the prime Offeror’s responsibility to identify all team members and confirm receipt of all attachments with the CO.

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

k. 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 is 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 proposed regional TEP. Proposed regional TEP will be evaluated as each Offeror may be awarded a task order for the region.

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

d. 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.

e. The overall proposed TEP 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 may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.

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. 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.

5.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

The Contract Documentation 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 and/or removed from further evaluation.