Attach_14_Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

M-1.1 Number of Contract(s): The Government intends to make an award to a single contractor. The awardee will perform SABER projects as described in the Statement of Work for a one (1) year base ordering period and will be awarded a pre-performance site visit to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award. A total of four (4) one-year option periods will be evaluated by the Government in accordance with FAR 52.217-9.

M-1.2. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value, subjective tradeoff source selection in which competing offerors past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. To be considered for award, an offeror must:

a) Meet the Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, and conform to all solicitation terms and conditions in compliance with Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to

Offerors

b) Have a complete, fair, and reasonable price/coefficient,

c) Receive a Past Performance Confidence Rating other than “Limited” or “No Confidence”

d) Be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1. Additionally, the Supplier Performance

Risk System will be checked for NIST SP 800-171 compliance and supplier risk, reference DFARS 252.204-7012 and DFARS 252.204-7024.

M-1.2.1 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 sub-factors. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices (coefficients) and past performance records.

M-1.2.2 In this source selection, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an integrated assessment and best value award decision to award without discussions or will direct establishment of a competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions. In making an integrated best value award decision, if the SSA determines it to be in the Government's best interest, the Government may trade up to a proposal with a higher coefficient rate that also has a higher performance confidence assessment rating. As such, award may be made to a higher priced offeror with a greater performance confidence assessment rating, over a lower priced offeror with a lesser past performance rating (to include "Unknown Confidence"). The

Government will not award a contract to an offeror rated "Limited Confidence" or "No

Confidence" under the Past Performance factor.

M-1.3 Discussions and Evaluations.

M-1.3.1 While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the

Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms. Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Past Performance or Price proposal. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal. In addition, the Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers if such action is in the Government's best interests.

M-1.3.2 Evaluation Process. The Government will assume that each proposal is complete and in accordance with Sections L & M and will initially rank the proposals from lowest Total

Evaluated Price (TEP) to highest TEP. As indicated in Section L-3.3.4, the TEP will be utilized for establishing the evaluation order purpose only. The TEP will be calculated by multiplying the offeror's coefficient rate proposed for the base period and all option periods identified in Section

B against the Average Estimated Volume (AEV) of each category. AEV is based on a maximum contract value of $15M over a potential five year period and will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Once the ranking by the TEP is established, the offer with the lowest TEP will be evaluated for past performance. If the lowest TEP proposal receives a Substantial Confidence Past performance assessment, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at that point. Award will be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror that is judged to be reasonable will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price-Coefficient) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. If no offeror receives a substantial confidence performance assessment, the Government will conduct a best value trade off between each offeror’s performance assessments and price.

The offered price must be determined fair and reasonable, and the offeror must be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1. Additionally, the Supplier Performance Risk System will be checked for NIST SP 800-171 compliance and supplier risk, reference DFARS 252.204-7012 and DFARS 252.204-7024. If such proposal is found fair and reasonable, then the SSA may determine that proposal represents the best value and direct award be made to that offeror without evaluating higher priced proposals or conducting discussions with previously evaluated, lower priced offerors. With the evaluation process described above, the offerors are reminded that it is imperative that they provide their best offer in their initial proposal.

The Government will evaluate offers as follows:

a) Price/Coefficient: The price evaluation team will evaluate the offeror's proposed coefficient to determine reasonableness. This evaluation will be IAW M-3.

b) Past Performance: The past performance evaluation team will evaluate the past performance.

The evaluation will be performed IAW M-4, and a performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned based on the integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and the performance quality of the totality of all pieces of past performance reviewed for that offeror.

M-1.3.3 The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If the Government holds discussions, at the direction of the SSA, the CO will establish a competitive range IAW FAR 15.306(c)(1) procedures and this solicitation. IAW FAR

15.306(c)(2), the Government also reserves the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the CO eliminates a proposal from the competitive range, the proposal will not be considered for award. Written notice of a CO's decision to eliminate will be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1).

M-1.3.4 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.

M-1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, and representations and certifications.

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 exception unacceptable.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

FACTOR 1: PRICE/COEFFICIENT

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

M-3 Factor 1: PRICE/COEFFICIENT

M-3.1 Coefficient Rate Reasonableness. The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the coefficient proposed for the base period and all option periods.

While the coefficient will not be rated, it will be evaluated for completeness and 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. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-3.2 The evaluation of the coefficient will be based on each offeror's proposed coefficient for all contract line items using the Arnold Coefficient Bid Schedule (Attachment 16). Using the

Coefficient Bid-Schedule, the “Adjusted Annual Amount based on Percentage of Estimated

Volume” will be multiplied by the offeror’s proposed coefficient rate for each category. The resulting amounts for each category will be added together to arrive at the “Total Estimated

Usage” for each performance period. All performance periods will be added together to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for all periods (CLINs 0001-0005). Offerors coefficient is identified as a percentage increase (e.g., 1.10) or decrease (e.g., 0.95) to the current edition of the Construction Task Catalog (CTC). They include all cost elements not included in the current CTC (e.g., overhead, profit, G & A expenses, bond premiums, quality control, clean-up, subcontractor mark-up, labor burden, mobilization/demobilization, permits and licenses, taxes, depreciation, as-built drawings, submittals, site security, etc.). Coefficient also includes any costs for the use or licensing fees associated with the eGordian software and access.

M-3.3 Average Volume Estimate is based on a maximum contract value of $15M over a five year period and will be used for evaluation purposes only. The offeror should not consider this figure as any indication of proposed contract usage, nor base the proposed coefficient rates on any expectation that such levels of award will be made by the Government.

M-3.4 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M-4 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The purpose of the past performance factor is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to provide construction services that meet users' needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the offeror performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance.

M-4.1 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers an offeror's demonstrated recent, relevant, and quality of record of performance. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating the offeror's recent and relevant past performance.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror's Past Performance Proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Past

Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases to include, but not limited to, interviews with Program Managers, Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) POCs, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA), an/or commercial sources.

The past performance evaluation will consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

The offeror's past performance efforts will be assessed for three categories: Recency, Relevancy, and Performance Quality. The Government will only evaluate Performance Quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

M-4.1.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the efforts must be ongoing contracts or those completed within six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

M-4.1.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the effort performed under those contracts/task orders relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. Offerors are required to demonstrate performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar or greater in scope to include managing multiple simultaneous task order type projects. Project work elements include renovation, alteration and repair, additions and upgrades, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and other major trades.

Managing multiple simultaneous task order projects is defined as having at least five (5) active task order projects at the same time with cumulative value of all task orders totaling approximately $2 million annually. The Government may give greater considerations to performance on contracts where the offeror performed/is performing as the prime contractor. The

Government may consider the portion of work performed on each piece of past performance in its relevancy assessment. Once the relevancy rating is assigned, there will be no relative comparison between contracts assigned within the same rating (for example, a "Very Relevant" contract will not be rated higher or lower than other "Very Relevant" contracts). The Government will use the following DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4, relevancy definitions:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

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.

M-4.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror's performance meets the solicitation requirements, the assessment may also consider aspects such as the offeror's history of adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. 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. Offerors may be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

M-4.2 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessment of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated Performance

Confidence Assessment Rating. This rating represents the overall evaluation of contractor performance.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the

Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant, favorable past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. NOTE: The Government will not award a contract to an offeror rated "Limited Confidence" or "No Confidence" under the Past Performance factor.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment

Ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 - Performance Confidence

Assessment, below:

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will

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

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

M-5 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY

M-5.1 Once the apparent successful offeror is selected the Government will evaluate the offeror’s financial capabilities and the specified criteria at FAR 9.104. Attachment 12, Financial

Reference Worksheet will be forwarded to the financial institution, and a determination will be made regarding the apparent successful offeror’s financial capabilities and overall contractor responsibility using the specified criteria at FAR 9.104. Additionally, the apparent awardee will be checked in the Supplier Performance Risk System NIST SP 800-171 compliance and supplier risk IAW DFARS 204.7302 and DFARS 204.76 (DFARS 252.204-7012 and DFARS 252.204-

7024). If an offeor’s SPRS NIST assessment score is less than 110, the offeror is required to submit a plan to become compliant to the Contracting Officer. In the event an offeror’s assessment score is less than 110 and a plan is requested, but a plan is not received, the offeor may not be elgible for award.