Attachment_9 _Section_M.pdf

FARM

FA9101-16-R-0100

Attachment 9

SECTION M

AEDC-M001, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (28 January 2016)

M-1.0. Evaluation Criteria

M-1.1 . Basis for Contract Award: This is a competitive best value source selection in which technically acceptable competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be considered technically equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale; otherwise, the proposal may be found unacceptable.

M-1.2. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, 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 subfactors, 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 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 superior past performance of the higher priced technically acceptable offer outweighs the cost / price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals according to the source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional business judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.3. The Government intends to award without conducting discussions. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss or revise their proposals. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if necessary at any time at the discretion of the Contracting Officer (CO) and the SSA. Discussions would then be held with all offerors within the competitive range after all offers had been evaluated.

M-1.4. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) with a target of four (4) contracts. The Government reserves the right to award any number of contracts, or none, if the SSA determines it to be in the Government’s best interest based on consideration of one or more of the following items: expected volume of work over the ordering period of the contracts, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of best value proposals following completion of the evaluation of the proposals received. All contractors who are awarded a contract as a result of this FARM solicitation will be awarded a task order to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award.

M-2.0. Evaluation Factors

M-2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate proposals.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Management Subfactor 2: Technical Capability

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

M-2.2. Evaluation Approach

M-2.2.1. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass / fail basis, assigning one of the technical ratings described below. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically Unacceptable. An offeror who receives a final technical rating of Unacceptable in either subfactor or both will not be considered for award.

TECHNICAL

RATING

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

M-2.2.1.1. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

M-2.2.1.1.1. Subfactor 1: Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s understanding and approach to accomplish the requirements of the FARM effort identified in Attachment 1, Statement of Work (SOW) for Facilities Acquisitions for Restoration and Modernization (Mechanical, Electrical, and Controls Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity [IDIQ]), Section 1 Paragraph 1.2 Scope of Work, in accordance with the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.2.1.1.1.1. Measures of Merit for Subfactor 1, Management

M-2.2.1.1.1.1.1. Qualified Personnel

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror presents an effective approach for ensuring they can provide a workforce with the technical capability to accomplish all elements of the SOW Section 1 Paragraph 1.2 Scope of Work.

M-2.2.1.1.1.1.2. Resource Capacity

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a viable approach to ensure sufficient resources are available to successfully execute the FARM program in order to perform simultaneous task orders, surge to meet heavy workload with short notice, and / or accommodate short duration outages.

M-2.2.1.1.1.1.3. Teaming

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides a viable approach for teaming arrangements with subcontractors and/or joint venture partners to ensure all the requirements in the SOW Section 1 Paragraph 1.2 Scope of Work are met.

M-2.2.1.1.1.1.4. Integrated Scheduling

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror describes a sound approach to develop and execute a realistic task order schedule.

M-2.2.1.1.1.1.5. Quality Assurance

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates an adequate approach to quality assurance to ensure the task order requirements are met.

M-2.2.1.1.1.1.6. Subcontracting Management

This element of the subfactor is met when an acceptable subcontracting plan is provided which demonstrates the extent to which the Offeror identifies the participation of small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor.

M-2.2.1.1.2. Subfactor 2: Technical Capability

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's understanding and capability to plan, design, and execute design-build projects for the FARM effort as demonstrated by Attachment L-9, Sample Project, Hydraulic System Upgrade.

M-2.2.1.1.2.1. Measures of Merit for Subfactor 2, Technical Capability

M-2.2.1.1.2.1.1. Design Approach

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a preliminary design that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the Sample Project addressing, if applicable, constructability, reliability, availability, and maintainability.

M-2.2.1.1.2.1.2. Risks and Mitigation

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides an effective risk management plan for the Sample Project.

M-2.2.1.1.2.1.3. Specifications

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a complete and logical outline specification for the Sample Project.

M-2.2.1.1.2.1.4. Drawings

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides sufficient concept drawings that demonstrate a sound technical solution to the requirements of the Sample Project.

M-2.2.1.1.2.1.5. Cost and Schedule

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides an efficient and realistic cost estimate and schedule of major activities that demonstrates the soundness of approach and understanding of the Sample Project requirements, their understanding of the logical sequence of activities, and cost for the Sample Project.

M-2.2.1.1.2.1.6. Commissioning Plan

This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a viable commissioning plan for the components and operational system(s) of the Sample Project.

M-2.2.2. Price Evaluation. The Government shall rank all technically Acceptable offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by calculating the total price for the seed projects. The Offeror’s price proposal for the seed projects shall be evaluated for price reasonableness and completeness as described in M-2.2.2.2. and M-2.2.2.3.

M-2.2.2.1. Each offeror’s TEP will be calculated by totaling the prices of the four seed projects, Attachments 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this RFP. The Government reserves the right to obtain other than cost or pricing data if deemed necessary by the CO. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose proposed TEP is not determined reasonable. Price reasonableness may be determined based on prices submitted by the competition, historical pricing, current market conditions, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate, and / or other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1.

The Government will evaluate the TEP to determine whether prices are complete and reasonable for the work to be performed.

M-2.2.2.2. Reasonableness: The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

M-2.2.2.3. Completeness: The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure all necessary data on Attachment L-8, Seed Project Pricing Sheet, is provided in a usable format.

M-2.2.2.4. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), or unaffordable (not within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) may not be considered for award.

M-2.2.2.5. The Price Volume will also be evaluated to ensure all other general information / data required by the solicitation has been submitted.

M-2.2.3. Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant past performance information based on: (1) the past efforts provided by the Offeror and

(2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

M-2.2.3.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been completed during the past 10 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M-2.2.3.2 Relevance Assessment. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving design-build and construction capabilities described in Section 1, Paragraph 1.2 of the SOW and the Management Subfactor (M-2.2.1.1.1), that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. A relevancy determination of the Offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major subcontractor(s). For purposes of proposals only, a major http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/31.htm subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor, other than the Offeror itself, that will be responsible for a significant portion of the technical requirements for one or more of the major capability requirements stated in the SOW Section 1 Paragraph 1.2, i.e., mechanical, electrical, ID&C, or design. Efforts covering a broader range of these capabilities will be considered more relevant than those covering a narrower range. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will only be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (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.

M-2.2.3.3. Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the Contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed as it relates to the Management Subfactor and the technical capabilities to complete the types of projects listed in Section 1 Paragraph 1.2 of the SOW (all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory 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 / 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 failed) 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.

M-2.2.3.4. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in Table 5 below, (excerpted from DoD Source Selection Procedures). Past performance regarding predecessor companies, joint venture partners, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent / relevant performance history or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.

M-2.2.4. The evaluation process shall be accomplished as follows:

M-2.2.4.1. An evaluation on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s Technical Proposal (Volume 1) including design-build sample project will be accomplished in accordance with paragraph M-2.2.1, Technical Acceptability.

M-2.2.4.2. An evaluation of each offeror’s proposed pricing will be accomplished to determine price reasonableness and completeness for the seed projects in accordance with M- 2.2.2.2 and M-2.2.2.3.

M-2.2.4.3. An evaluation of past performance of all offers will be performed in accordance with paragraph M-2.2.3, Performance Confidence Assessment, and a performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on recency, the degree of relevancy, and the level of quality.

M-2.2.4.4. The SSA will assess the price and past performance for all technically acceptable proposals to make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

M-2.2.4.5. If the Government is unable to award all four of the seed projects to lowest priced, technically acceptable offerors with Substantial Confidence, the Government reserves the right to

TABLE 5- 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.

award a contract to other lowest priced, technically acceptable offerors, if those offerors are judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence."