Atch_8_-_FA9101-17-R-0025_Section_M.pdf

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

SUBJECTIVE TRADEOFF

M001. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors past performance history will be evaluated on a basis more important than cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and requirements in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The tradeoff will occur only between past performance and price. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined contractually unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

The Government intends to award three contracts. In accordance with FAR 52.216-28, "Single or Multiple Award", the Government may elect to award a single delivery order contract or task order contract or to award multiple delivery order contracts or task order contracts for the same or similar supplies or services to two or more sources under this solicitation. The Government also reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the best interest of the Government. NOTE: The Government reserves the right to issue task orders, without further competition, for any combination of the three projects identified in Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0001 to meet the minimum obligations for this Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. For example, if three offerors are awarded contracts, one project would be awarded to each selected offeror. This combination of project task orders would result in the lowest total cost to the Government while meeting the minimum obligation requirement for each IDIQ contract. This may not result in the award of the lowest price offer for any individual project.

A. Price Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to total evaluated price (TEP).

An offeror’s TEP will be determined by adding the prices of the three individual seed projects and any applicable options identified in Section B of CLIN 0001, Project 14876, Project 14877 and Project 14878. Offerors whose TEP is unreasonable (in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (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. 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. The price evaluation will document (for the offers evaluated under paragraph B below) the reasonableness of the proposed TEP.

Note: Project 14876 in accordance with FAR 52.217-5; Evaluation of Options will be utilized for evaluation of award - “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 under this project. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).”

Atch 8 17-R-0025

B. Past Performance Evaluation. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant past performance information on no more than the five lowest reasonable and affordable TEP offerors based on (1) offeror’s past performance information as identified in RFP Attachment 7, Section L, Paragraph 4.1, (2) the past efforts provided by the offeror questionnaires Attachment 6, and

(3) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if three of the five lowest TEP offerors do not receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment. 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, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, 31 Mar 2016, Table 5 located on page 34. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel or subcontractors who have relevant experience that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with 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 shall receive the rating of “Neutral”. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Table 5 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS 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.

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 be ongoing for at least one year or must have been completed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2. Relevant Assessment. Relevant projects include performance efforts involving paving and like projects in scope, magnitude, and complexity as described in this solicitation. Relevant contracts include, but are not limited to completion of one, or more, or a combination of the following efforts exceeding $75,000;

a. Paving contracts where the offeror repaired an existing condition;

b. Contracts where the offeror performed minor new pavement construction; or

c. Contracts where the offeror performed pavement repair or minor new pavement construction while allowing safe passage of vehicles/pedestrians to and from occupied buildings, and minimizing outages and down time.

Note that the Government generally will not consider performance on a newly awarded contract without a performance history or on an effort that concluded more than five (5) years prior to the release date of this solicitation.

3. The total number of recent and relevant contract references for Federal agencies or commercial customers within the last five years shall not exceed FIVE references from prime contractor, major subcontractors, and joint venture partners combined. References exceeding five will not be evaluated and shall be limited to no more than three (3) pages for each contract.

For proposal purposes only, a major 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 requirements in the Statement of Work.

4. The Government will use the following past performance relevancy ratings when accessing recent, relevant contracts (DOD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating Description 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 Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed (however, all aspects of performance that relates to this acquisition may be considered) (see M- 001, Basis for Contract Award). 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. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information 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 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 assessment rating table 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. 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 RFP.

Performance confidence ratings will be reviewed in conjunction with the offeror’s proposed price for the individual projects. It is the Government’s intent to select three IDIQ contract awardees based on the past performance and price combinations that represent the best value to the Government. The Government will consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.

E. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced offerors. If three of the five lowest TEP offers are not assessed to have Substantial Confidence, then the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may continue evaluating the next lowest offers until three offerors are found to have Substantial Confidence. Once three offerors are assessed to have Substantial Confidence or all offers are evaluated, the SSA shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision. The Government intends to award three contracts. However, the Government may award less than three contracts if in the Government’s best interest. Also, the Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the best interest of the Government.

F. The Government reserves the right to contact any and all references either provided by the offeror or found by the Government. This assessment will be accomplished using both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources. The assessment of performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the determination of responsibility required by FAR Part 9.

G. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

H. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors.

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and performance standpoint. However, 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 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.