FARM II Attachment 9 Section M.pdf

FA9101-21-R-0001

Attachment 9

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

9 June 2021

FARM II

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1.0. EVALUATION CRITERIA

M-1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315, and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Attachment 8, 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 will select for award the most advantageous proposals representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price.

The offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Government seeks to award to the offerors who demonstrate the greatest confidence that they will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in awards made to higher rated, higher priced offerors, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher priced offerors outweighs the price 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.

M-1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a minimum of two with a target of four 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 offerors who are awarded a contract as a result of this Facilities Acquisitions for Restoration and Modernization (FARM) II solicitation will be awarded a task order to meet the minimum guaranteed amount at the time of award.

M-1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "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.

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the evaluation factors as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation. Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing a volume (either hard copy or electronic) or other information required by the solicitation).

M-1.4. Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions (except clarifications may be conducted as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) later determines them to be necessary. If the PCO 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 PCO 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.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with offerors, they will be in the form of Evaluation Notices (ENs). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to ENs in the event they are issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. If discussions are required, they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of the PCO’s judgment as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.306. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround within two business days in responding to the PCO.

M-1.5. Competitive Range

If discussions are conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. If the PCO determines that an offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, whether for purposes of efficiency or otherwise, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503, whereupon offerors may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR Subpart 15.505.

M-1.6. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)

FPRs will be requested when discussions have been concluded. Offerors are advised that unsupported FPRs may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy. Any changes to or non-concurrence with contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise its proposal. Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-1.7. Certification Gate

The Government will review the offeror’s initial proposal for documentation certifying that the offeror possesses the necessary bonding capacity as described in Attachment 8, Section L, Paragraph L-3.1.1.4. Any proposal received that does not meet this condition will be returned to the offeror without any further evaluation, and is considered ineligible for award.

M-1.8. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

The PCO shall review and determine whether each offeror selected for award has addressed and resolved all OCIs in its OCI mitigation plans before making award. If an OCI is not adequately addressed or mitigated, the PCO reserves the right to notify the offeror as-is, and allow the offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond before making an award decision. The PCO reserves the right to reject offers which do not adequately resolve all OCIs. The PCO also reserves the right to obtain an OCI waiver and make an award when in the best interest of the Government.

M-1.9. 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 or subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and instructions contained in Attachment 8, Section L may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing a volume (either hard copy or electronic) or other information required by the solicitation). 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 and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

M-2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M-2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M-2.1.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1.1: Management Approach Subfactor 1.2: Technical Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price Factor 4: Small Business

M-2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Except for the Small Business factor, the relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: The Technical and Past Performance factors are of equal importance. The Management Approach and Technical Approach subfactors are of equal importance. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and total evaluated price (TEP) and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value. The Small Business factor will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-2.5.1-1, and therefore is not included in the relative order of importance for the factors.

M-2.2. Technical Factor

The Technical Factor will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s management approach and technical approach.

M-2.2.1. Technical Rating. The Government will evaluate proposals for Technical subfactors

1.1 and 1.2 using the ratings described in Table M-2.2.1-1. The ratings described in Table M- 2.2.1-1 focus on the strengths, risks, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal, and depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration (i.e., assign a strength), for performance in excess of threshold requirements. The Government, in its discretion, may consider various performance concerns when evaluating risk (manifested in the form of weaknesses) associated with the submitted proposals. The risk evaluation considers the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight. Note risk will not be separately rated.

Each subfactor will receive an independent rating that will not be rolled up into an overall rating.

However, a rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more Technical Subfactors will result in a proposal that is unawardable.

Table M-2.2.1-1: Technical Subfactor Technical Rating Definitions

M-2.2.1.1. Subfactor 1.1: Management Approach

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s understanding and approach to accomplish the requirements of the FARM II effort identified in Attachment 1, Statement of Work (SOW), Section 1, Paragraph 1.2, Scope of Work, IAW the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.2.1.1.1. Teaming and Subcontractor Management

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror proposes a viable approach for teaming arrangements with joint venture partners and/or subcontractors to execute contract requirements as a single, cohesive entity.

M-2.2.1.1.2. Quality Management System (QMS)

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an effective QMS plan to ensure services are provided IAW contract requirements throughout the life of the contract.

M-2.2.1.1.3. Qualified Personnel

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror proposes an effective approach to recruit and retain personnel with the skill sets to meet contract requirements.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet RFP requirements, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is not awardable.

M-2.2.1.2. Subfactor 1.2: Technical Approach

This subfactor evaluates the offeror's understanding and approach to plan, design, and execute design-build projects for the FARM II effort IAW Attachment 1, SOW, Section 1, Paragraph 1.2, Scope of Work. The evaluation will be based on the offeror’s approach to execute the Seed Project requirements as described in Attachment 7, Leg 2 Isolation Valve.

M-2.2.1.2.1. Risk Management Plan

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror proposes an effective risk management approach for the Seed Project.

M-2.2.1.2.2. Project Schedule

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror proposes a schedule that demonstrates an understanding of the logical sequencing of activities to execute the Seed Project.

M-2.2.1.2.3. Design Package

Measure of Merit: This element is met when the offeror proposes a concept design narrative that demonstrates a sound technical approach to meet the Seed Project requirements.

M-2.2.2. Discriminator Definition

Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. The Government’s Technical evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and discriminators, including proposal strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined in Table M-2.2.2-1).

Table M-2.2.2-1: Evaluation Definitions

Discriminator Definition

Strength An aspect of the proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency A material failure of the proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

M-2.3. Past Performance Factor

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. Each offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment at the Past Performance factor level. The PCO shall seek 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-2.3.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M-2.1.2. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in the proposals. 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, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

M-2.3.1.1. 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 or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M-2.3.1.2. Relevancy Assessment. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving design-build and construction capabilities described in Section 1, Paragraph 1.2 of the SOW and Technical subfactor 1.1 (M-2.2.1.1.), that involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The following past performance relevancy criteria will be used during the evaluation:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope includes technical subfactor M-2.2.1.1. and the tasks/functions described in Section 1, Paragraph 1.2 of the SOW.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the FARM II. Efforts of less than $100K annually or $250K total contract scope will not be considered relevant.

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the tasks/functions referenced in the FARM II SOW in terms of the breadth of disciplines required, contract type, and performance period.

A relevancy rating will be assigned to each reference by evaluating relevancy against the technical subfactor M-2.2.1.1. and the tasks/functions described in Section 1, Paragraph 1.2 of the SOW. 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 subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor, other than the offeror itself, that will be responsible for design or one or more of the major capability requirements stated in the SOW Section 1, Paragraph 1.2 (i.e., mechanical, electrical, or ID&C).

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 not consider experience of subordinate or affiliated offices of the offeror, unless the offeror clearly details the proposed meaningful involvement of the offeror’s subordinate or affiliated offices in this requirement. Past performance examples from offerors submitted from previous joint ventures may not be considered as relevant as those where the offeror was wholly responsible for the cited work. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table M-2.3.1.2-1: Relevancy Definitions

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-2.3.1.3. 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 Approach Technical subfactor and 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:

Table M-2.3.1.3-1: Quality Level Definitions

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.

2.3.2. Ratings. 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 Table M-2.3.2-1 below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, joint venture partners, or major subcontractors 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 "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Table M-2.3.2-1: Performance Confidence Assessment Definitions

M-2. 4. Price Factor

M-2.4.1. Price Evaluation

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of the offeror’s price proposal for the Seed Project and the post-award conference. Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, and (3) TEP. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

M-2.4.1.1. Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Attachment 8, Section L, L-3.4. of the solicitation.

M-2.4.1.2. Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

M-2.4.1.3. TEP: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s pricing for the Seed Project and the proposed price for the post-award conference. Offeror’s pricing will be evaluated as provided in Attachment L-7, Pricing Sheet.

M-2.4.1.3.1 When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied IAW FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at the TEP.

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.

M-2.5. Small Business Factor

M-2.5.1. Small Business Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the overall Small Business Subcontracting Plan of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable,” as defined in Table M-2.5.1-1.

Table M-2.5.1-1: Small Business Factor Technical Rating Definitions

M-2.5.2. To receive an “Acceptable” rating in this factor, the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan must demonstrate the extent to which the offeror identifies and commits to the participation of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns, whether as joint venture members, teaming arrangement partners, or subcontractors.

M-2.5.3. Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating for Small Business (after discussions if discussions are held) will result in a proposal that is unawardable.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.