FARM III RFP SF1442 Atch 7 Section M.pdf

FA9101-26-R-B011

Attachment 7

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Facilities Acquisitions for Restoration and Modernization (FARM) III

24 April 2026

FARM III

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 15.103, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3, and the Department of the Air Force FAR Supplement (DAFFARS) Subpart 5315.3. The Government will select the best overall offers that, based upon the results of an integrated assessment of the proposals, offer the Government a combination of the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) Work Sample Evaluation ratings and acceptable Small Business Participation. Although this source selection includes an integrated assessment, the evaluation methodology is not a tradeoff.

M-1.1.1 To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible IAW FAR 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 6, Section L of this solicitation).

M-1.1.2 Best value to the Government is represented by the combination of HTRO Work Sample Evaluation (based on validated self-scoring) and acceptable Small Business Participation. Other-than small businesses (OTSBs) must also have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

M-1.1.3 The Source Selection Authority (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;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

To establish the Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC), the Government intends to award a target of eight contracts to the HTROs with acceptable Small Business Participation. 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.

M-1.3 IDIQ Ceiling

The overall ceiling of the IDIQ is $900M for eight years if all options are exercised (three-year base ordering period plus one three-year option and one two-year option). The total value of all task orders (TOs) awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount. Funding will be determined at the individual TO level.

M-1.4 Minimum Guaranteed TO

A Post-Award Conference will be awarded to each IDIQ awardee. The TO for the virtual Post- Award Conference is $1,000.00 and will satisfy the minimum order requirement. A Contractor that is awarded an IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any TO beyond the Post-Award Conference.

M-1.5 Proposal Substantiation

Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Work Sample evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated and the proposal may be disqualified and not awardable.

M-1.6 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions (except clarifications may be conducted as described in FAR 15.306(a)). 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 15.306. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround within two business days in responding to the PCO.

M-1.7 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 IAW FAR 15.204-1, whereupon Offerors may request and receive a debriefing IAW

FAR 15.505 or 15.506. Proposals that have no realistic chance of being selected for an award will not be included in the competitive range (see Section M-3.3.2).

M-1.8 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-2.0 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY

M-2.1 Proposal Compliance

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 6, Section L may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing a volume 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-2.2 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal deemed unacceptable. 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.

Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing a volume or other information required by the solicitation).

M-2.3 Responsibility

No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the PCO determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1.

Additionally, the Government will reach out to the Financial Institution identified in Section L Attachment L-1, Offeror Company Information, to request a Banking Status Inquiry. The Banking Status Inquiry will not be evaluated as part of the technical proposal; however, its evaluation is required to determine contractor responsibility prior to award.

M-2.4 Construction Bonding

The Government will evaluate the information provided IAW Section L-3.1.3.2 to determine whether an Offeror has the required bonding capacity. Offerors who cannot comply with the requirements set forth in Section L-3.1.3.2 will not be considered for award and will be removed from the competition.

M-2.5 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-2.6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan

The Government will assess the extent to which the Offeror proposes acceptable use of Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns in the performance of the proposed contract.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be assessed as acceptable or unacceptable IAW FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. For OTSB, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is mandatory for award and the plan shall be incorporated into any resultant contract. Offerors shall use a sample dollar value of $10M for their calculations.

M-3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

M-3.1 Evaluation Methodology

The Government will utilize an HTRO methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself based on the objective criteria described in Section L.

M-3.1.1 Offeror Self-Scoring Evaluation and Validation

The Offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring in the Offeror-completed Section L Attachment L-4, HTRO Scoring Matrix. The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will validate the (up to eight) highest proposed self-scores. If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted because of Government validation, and the Offeror is no longer among the highest rated Offerors, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror, until the awards are fulfilled with the highest Government-validated scores (see Section M-3.3).

M-3.1.2 Ties and Tie Breakers

Tie (definition): When more than one HTRO proposals have the same validated score.

After validation of the top eight rated self-scores, the Government will view the proposed self-score of the ninth top rated Offeror. If the proposed self-score of the ninth top rated Offeror is tied with the eighth top rated Government-validated score, then the Government will validate the proposed self-score of the ninth top rated Offeror. In the event of a tie, the Government will utilize the following tie-breaker process(es).

First, the Government will consider the initial scores prior to CPARS Bonus points in cells D40 and D41, and the Offeror with the higher initial score will be selected.

If a tie exists after the first tie breaker, the Government will consider the scores for the “Total dollar value of construction services projects supporting DoD Installations” in cell F34, and the Offeror with the higher score for cell F34 will be selected.

If a tie exists after the second tie breaker, the Government reserves the right to exclude or retain each of the tied Offerors. The decision is to exclude or include tied Offerors is the sole discretion of the Government.

M-3.1.3 Small Business Participation Evaluation

The Government will then evaluate Small Business Participation (see Section M-3.4). If an Offeror is found unacceptable in Small Business Participation, the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror and then evaluate that Offeror for Small Business Participation acceptability.

The Government, either without discussions or after discussions occur, will award up to eight basic contracts that represent the best value to the Government based on Work Sample Evaluation ratings and acceptable Small Business Participation.

M-3.2 Evaluation Factors

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Work Sample Evaluation Factor 2: Small Business Participation

IAW FAR 15.304(c)(1)(i), the Government is not evaluating Cost/Price; Cost/Price will be evaluated at the TO level.

M-3.3 Factor 1 – Work Sample Evaluation (Volume II)

M-3.3.1 Evaluation

The Offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring as provided by the submitted Section L Attachment L-4, HTRO Scoring Matrix. Offeror’s self-scores will be validated using the work samples provided. The Government will review the section of the work sample that is listed within the submitted Section L Attachment L-3, Cross Reference Matrix and any provided statement of facts. If the substantiating information cannot be found within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc., the Government will not search for the substantiating information. If the Offeror’s score cannot be validated based on the work samples and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the score, potentially all the way down to zero points. The Government will ONLY adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, not upward.

Adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government.

M-3.3.2 Minimum Threshold for Work Sample Evaluation Score

To be eligible for award, the Offeror’s validated HTRO score must be 12,000 points or higher. If an Offeror’s self-score is less than 12,000 points, that Offeror’s proposal will not be validated and will automatically be removed from the competition.

M-3.4 Factor 2 – Small Business Participation (Volume III)

M-3.4.1 Small Business Participation Evaluation

Each Offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. This Factor is met when the Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

M-3.4.1.1 This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least three methods the Offeror intends to utilize to ensure small businesses* have equitable opportunities to compete for subcontracts on all TOs.

M-3.4.1.2 This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least three methods the Offeror intends to utilize to develop subcontracting goals to meet and exceed DoD small businesses goals in all TOs.

M-3.4.1.3 This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least two outreach methods the Offeror intends to utilize in locating small businesses for subcontracting on all TOs.