Final Section M.pdf

FA452824R0001

Attachment 10

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS:

A. SOURCE SELECTION

1. Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize the Subjective Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 20 August 2022 and Department of Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will conduct a competitive source selection in which technical capability and past performance history, when combined, will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations IAW FAR 15.101(b)(2). The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the small business offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. 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 technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, 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) meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in this solicitation Section M. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for a Child

Development Center Renovation at Minot AFB, North Dakota.

3. Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or the opportunity for proposal revisions. 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. Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals removed for unfavorable ratings or pricing at the sole discretion of the Government. A https://www.acquisition.gov/ competitive range, if required, may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

4. 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. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

5. Proposal Evaluation Approach:

a. Step 1: Evaluate all timely proposals for completeness.

b. Step 2: Evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability. Concurrently, the

Government will assess past performance for each offeror.

c. Step 3: Evaluate all proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (IAW

FAR 15.404) then ranked by Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

d. Step 5: The Government may request clarifications, communications, or discussions for proposals through Evaluation Notice(s).

e. Step 6: The Source Selection Evaluation Board will compile a Source Selection Decision

Document for the SSA to assess the integrated best value to the Government and, upon contract clearance, select the successful offeror.

6. Responsibility: In addition to the evaluation factors noted above, the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings) Subfactor 1: Work Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2. Relative Importance: The Government will conduct a competitive source selection in which technical (including technical risk) rating and past performance history, when combined, will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations.

C. PROPOSAL EVALUATIONS

1. Volume I - Technical Factor: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the combined technical/risk of proposals by assigning one of the ratings described below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of the specs and SOW and their associated risks. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable or higher, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Table

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each Technical subfactor identified below will receive one of the adjectival ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures table above, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical factors.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Work Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s work plan.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a Gantt Chart (or similar) highlighting a breakdown of the items/tasks (milestones) identified in the specifications/drawings and how the offeror plans on accomplishing each individual task within the performance period specified for the project. Additionally, the offeror shall clearly and thoroughly depict the critical path to complete the project within the performance period.

2. Volume II - Past Performance Factor: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

a. Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government will employ several approaches, including but not limited to the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; previous source selections; and interviews/questionnaires with Contracting Officers and commercial sources if the data is recent and relevant. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including generally trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects will be considered for each of the contracts evaluated.

i. 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 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contract PPQs (Attachment 7). The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed. Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the logistical considerations including but not limited to length of effort, dollar values, and type and complexity of deliverables. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the logistical scope and magnitude of effort. If both aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities but involves only some of the logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

Consideration will be given to the offeror that performed as the prime contractor for similar renovation projects with a contract dollar value of at least $2M and having similar project size, complexity, and function, utilizing trades relevant to those required by this solicitation and SOW and as defined by the NAICS code 236220. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The PPQs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Higher relevancy will be assigned for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that offeror is proposing. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Table 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.

Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s written consent.

Provide a letter of consent to release past performance information to the prime offeror from each subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

iii. Performance Confidence Assessment: Each offeror will receive a single integrated performance confidence assessment based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed. More recent performance or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror or joint venture has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends. Each offeror will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings as described in the table below:

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method Table 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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

3. Volume III - Price Factor: Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

a. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total price proposed for the requirement.

b. Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable pursuant to FAR 15.404. Comparison of the proposed prices among offerors in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price will be IAW FAR 15.404.

c. The Government shall rank all offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP is the main CLIN

0001 plus all option CLINS (0002, 0003, and 0004). Evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercising/utilizing/funding the options.

d. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. If at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of price.