FY27 LRAFB MACC Section M Draft 8.11.26.docx

DRAFT Section M Evaluation Criteria For Little Rock Air Force Base (LRAFB) Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) Aug 2026

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION.

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror's capabilities and proposals for the Little Rock Air Force Base Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC). The Government will evaluate proposals using the Two-Phase Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price (HTRO – FRP) source selection process in which technical rating is significantly more important than price. This approach prioritizes the best possible performance, provided the price is determined to be fair and reasonable. All proposals are initially evaluated in phase 1 based solely on the non-price factors specified in Section L. Only the price of the highest-ranked technical proposal is then evaluated in phase 2 to ensure fair and reasonable pricing. The Government intends to award up to eight (8) IDIQ contracts under this MACC, as required by RFO 16.504. If fewer than eight (8) technically acceptable offers with prices determined fair and reasonable are received, the Government reserves the right to make a reduced number of awards, including a single award.

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price (HTRO – FRP) source selection for the Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC)/Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ), in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.1 as supplemented. In this procurement, 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) self-scores and complete, fair and reasonable pricing.

1.1.1 Small Business Set Aside Award. The Government intends to award to the eight (8) highest technically rated offerors with complete, fair and reasonable pricing. The magnitude of construction anticipated under individual task orders is estimated to range from $2,000 to $20,000,000 in accordance with RFO 36.204 The Government reserves the right to make award to more or less that eight (8) offerors if the Government determines it would be in its best interest. The Government is not selecting a lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, nor will it conduct a subjective tradeoff. Award will be made to those Offerors whose proposals demonstrate Technical Experience based on validated self-scoring, who have been determined to be responsible in accordance FAR 9.104-1, and whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation). Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined non-responsive.

1.1.2 On Ramps. The Government reserves the right to exercise “on-ramps” as described in Attachment ## - On Off Ramping Procedures, of this solicitation to award additional contracts at any point within the ordering period, to include the three (3) year base period and two (2) 2-year ordering period options. Should the Government elect to exercise “on-ramps”, the Government may exceed the number of contracts contemplated above.

1.1.3 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of all source selection evaluation criteria in this Section M (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.

2.0 EVALUATION

2.1 Responsiveness. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines it to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility. To be eligible for award, the offeror's proposal must be received timely and deemed responsive in that the proposal meets all requirements of the solicitation; conforms to all required terms and conditions; includes all applicable representations and certifications if not registered in SAM; and acknowledges all amendments, if applicable. An offeror's proposal deemed non-responsive may not be evaluated further.

2.2 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology. This method requires the Offeror to score itself in Volume II: Technical Experience, based on the objective criteria described in Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents. The Government will validate scores and evaluate all the criteria mentioned in Section L, including Appendix A, Self-Scoring Matrix, even if not reiterated in this document, Section M, Evaluation Criteria. In accordance with the number of awards in paragraph 1.1.2, the Offeror with a combination of the HTRO and a Fair and Reasonable Price will represent the best value to the Government.

The Offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring in the Offeror completed Appendix A, Self-Scoring Matrix, which includes weighting for each factor. The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will validate the highest proposed self-scores to fulfill the awards. 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, awards are fulfilled with the highest Government-validated scores.

The evaluation uses two evaluation factors, Technical Experience and Pricing. The Government intends to conduct the technical evaluation using a HTRO Self-Rated Scoring Validation methodology where the Offeror’s Government-validated rating and pricing is fair and reasonable to be deemed an acceptable Offeror. There will be no trade-offs between past performance, cost/price, and technical. Following Government-validation of Self-Rated Scores, the Government will then evaluate the Sampe Project Estimate of the top eight (8) Offerors for fair and reasonableness.

2.3 Score Validation. The Government has determined that an Offeror’s Government-validated rating represents its level of demonstrated capability to perform similar work, and those with a high level of demonstrated capability of the categories contained in Appendix A, Self-Scoring Matrix present a lower risk of unsuccessful performance to the Government.

The Government will only validate the top eight (8) self-scored matrices. The Offeror’s Self-Score is the total of all points claimed for each category. The Government-validated rating is the total of all points that the Government evaluation team validates during their evaluation. The Government will validate based documents identified within the Appendix C, Cross Reference Matrix. The Government-validated rating may be lower than the Offeror’s Self-Score if the Government evaluation team is unable to find evidence for the claimed points within the Offeror’s proposal as cited in Appendix C.

The Burden of Proof for substantiating points in the HTRO Self-Rated Scoring Matrix rests with the Offeror. The substantiating documentation shall contain sufficient data to validate points claimed in the Offeror’s proposal.

2.4 Ties and Tie Breakers. Tie (definition): When more than one HTRO proposal have the same validated score. If ties exist at the planned maximum number of awards, the Government will award contracts to all of the tied HTRO proposals increasing the number of awards.

2.5 Evaluation Factors. The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section M:

Factor 1: Technical Experience Category 1: Relevant Construction Experience (Categories 1a-1f) Category 2: Design Experience (Categories 2a-2b) Category 3: Past Performance Category 4: Staffing (Categories 4a-4e) Category 5: Geographic Expertise (Categories 5a-5b)

Factor 3: Pricing

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Criteria and Maximum Points. The Government has established the evaluation criteria, adjectival rating definitions, and scoring methodology to be applied by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) in assessing offerors under the High Technical Risk Organization (HTRO) Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. All evaluation procedures are conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.305, and applicable Air Force source selection procedures and policy guidance. Evaluators are reminded that each assigned score must be individually derived, fully documented, and traceable to specific narrative citations drawn directly from the offeror's submitted proposal. No scores shall be presumed, interpolated, or based on evaluator inference absent documentary support from the proposal record.

Table 1 – Technical Factors and Points

3.2 Table 2 - Adjectival Rating Definitions

3.3 Scoring. The Government will score each evaluation factor independently based solely on proposal content and supporting documentation submitted by the offeror. The Government will assign a numeric score within the factor's maximum point range consistent with the applicable adjectival rating definition set forth in Para 3.2 Table 2 - Adjectival Rating Definitions. The Government will document at least one specific narrative citation from the offeror's proposal for each rating assigned, identifying the volume, section, and page number of the supporting content. The Government will avoid consensus scoring — individual evaluator scores will be recorded independently prior to any discussion; consensus is reached exclusively through the SSEB deliberation process as directed by the SSEB Chair. Scores above "Acceptable" must be supported by one or more identified and documented strengths; scores below "Acceptable" must be supported by specifically documented weaknesses, risks, or deficiencies. No single factor score may be rounded, adjusted, or modified absent written approval from the SSEB Chair with a supporting written justification entered into the evaluation record.

3.4 Score Weight. The Government established a weighted scoring variant to this evaluation package (Attachment ## - LRAFB MACC HTRO Evaluation Package), which normalizes each individual factor score to its proportional contribution to the 15,080-point total. Weighted scores enable direct side-by-side comparison of multiple offerors across all evaluation factors on a standardized basis, facilitating integrated assessment by the SSEB. The weighted scoring methodology provides an additional layer of analytical defensibility for source selection documentation and shall be used in conjunction with, not as a substitute for, the full adjectival and narrative evaluation record required by the evaluation criteria.

3.5 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE

Categories 1a-1f: RELEVANT CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE

Category 1a: Commercial, Industrial & Residential Bldg. Multi Trade Thresholds In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the value of multiple trade construction projects where the Offeror was Prime Contractor within the thresholds of under $250k, between $250k and $1M, and over $1M. Multiple Trade is defined as the involvement of various specialized crafts or subcontractors, see Appendix A, Self-Scoring Matrix, Category 2b for typical trades and specializations. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with the strength of the Offeror’s technical experience in multiple trade construction projects, which is a top priority for the Mission Partner.

Category 1b: Commercial, Industrial & Residential Bldg. Number of Multi Trade Projects In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of multiple trades within a construction project identified in Category 1a. Multiple Trade is defined as the involvement of various specialized crafts or subcontractors, see Appendix A, Self-Scoring Matrix, Category 2b for typical trades and specializations. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with the strength of the Offeror’s technical expertise in multi-trade construction projects, which is a top priority for the Mission Partner.

Category 1c: Construction for the US Government In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of projects as Prime Contractor executed for the US Government under and over $1M. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it demonstrates the Offeror’s proven experience successfully performing large dollar value and complex scope construction projects directly for the U.S. Government as the prime contractor.

Category 1d: Multiple Construction Multi-Trade In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned performing multi trade construction projects in parallel during a period of at least six (6) months. Multiple Trade is defined as the involvement of various specialized crafts or subcontractors, see Appendix A, Self-Scoring Matrix, Category 2b for typical trades and specializations. Execution in parallel is defined as concurrent. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with a basis for the strength of the Offeror’s management, capability, and ability to fulfill Mission Partner requirements.

Category 1e: Construction in Secured Areas In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to experience as Prime Contractor with Construction in Secured Areas experience under and over $750k. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to many construction projects that will be required under this MACC. It is important for the Government to understand the Offeror’s prior experience with Construction in Secured Areas, as it directly relates to the ability to fulfill Mission Partner requirements.

Category 1f: Individual Trade Projects In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to Prime Contractor experience in five (5) individual construction trades under and over $500K or under and over $750K, where the Prime Contractor performed at least 60% of the work. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as these trades directly relate to many construction projects that will be required under this MACC. It is important for the Government to understand the Offeror’s prior experience with these five (5) individual construction trades, as they directly relate to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Categories 2a-2b: DESIGN EXPERIENCE

Category 2a: Experience as Prime Contractor on Design-Build Projects Over $1M In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the Offeror’s experience as a Prime Contractor with Design-Build projects over $1M. It is important for the Government to understand the Offeror’s prior experience and ability to identify potential risk and problem solve if, and when, unknowns arise in a given construction project. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to mitigating risk to the Government.

Category 2b: Experience as Prime Contractor on Design-Build Projects. Scope of Design In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the Offeror’s experience as a Prime Contractor with Design-Build projects submitted for Category 2a. It is important for the Government to understand the Offeror’s prior experience and ability to identify potential risk and problem solve if, and when, unknowns arise in a given construction project. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to mitigating risk to the Government.

Category 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

Category 3: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluations or Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the Offeror’s performance ratings as a Prime Contractor. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to mitigating risk to the Government.

Categories 4a-4e: STAFFING

Category 4a: In-House Workforce. Trade/Construction Workers In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Trade/Construction Workers. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with basis for the strength of the Offeror’s ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 4b: In-House Workforce. Architects/Engineers In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Architects or Engineers. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with basis for the strength of the Offeror’s ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 4c: Certified Safety Manager In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Certified Safety Managers. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to mitigate safety risk and maintain safe construction sites.

Category 4d: Qualified Fire Protection Engineer In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Certified Fire Protection Engineers. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to mitigate fire risk.

Category 4e: Certified Training for Hazardous Material abatement TRGS (Technical Rules for Hazardous Substances) In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to TRGS (Technical Rules for Hazardous Substances) Certification. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 5a-5b: GEOGRAPHIC EXPERTISE

Category 5a: Proximity to LRAFB In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to whether the Offeror has an existing, manned office located within 25 miles of Little Rock Air Force Base. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides insight into the ease of access to key personnel to mitigate issues/risks that arise during performance of the contract.

Category 5b: Regional Presence In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to whether the Offeror has an existing, manned office within 500 miles of Little Rock, Arkansas. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides insight into the ease of access to key personnel to mitigate issues/risks that arise during performance of the contract.

3.6 FACTOR 2 – SAMPLE PROJECT/PRICE

This is a sample project. The Government does not intend to issue a task order for this project. All awardees will be awarded task orders to cover the minimum guarantee of $500. The price for the sample project will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine reasonableness, as described below:

i. Completeness – The Offeror’s estimated prices for the sample project will be evaluated for compliance with Section L and all other portions of the RFP. The Offeror shall ensure that they have provide all requested pricing information.

ii. Reasonableness – The Offeror’s estimated prices for the sample project will be evaluated for reasonableness pursuant to FAR 15.404. 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.

iii. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The Government will evaluate offers by using the prices indicated in the Price Estimate for the sample project on Appendix E, AF 3052 Sample Project Estimate and the Sample Project RFP Schedule B in Attachment ##. An Offeror’s estimated prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the sample project price schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each. The extended amounts will be added together to determine the total evaluated price.

4.0 DISCUSSIONS. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15 .306. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.