M-1 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that each will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably and in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, evaluations of the factors described in this provision will be completed. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, 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 paragraph M-2 below.

The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

M-1.2 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 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. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offeror's may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period.

M-1.3 Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPR): If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to ENs and the FPR will be considered in making the decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M-1.4 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M-1.5 Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The Contracting Officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor's current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor's compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the Contracting Officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M-2 FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M-2.1 Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror's proposal shall be performed. The Government's evaluation shall be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Price

M-2.2 Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past performance history will be evaluated on a basis that is significantly more important than cost or price considerations.

M-3 EVALUATION PROCESS: The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L, Paragraph L-2. All conforming proposals shall then be ranked by proposed price for the project from lowest to highest and then evaluated for past performance. If the lowest evaluated priced offeror is judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, then that offer will represent the best value for the Government and an award will be made.

If the lowest priced evaluated offeror is not judged to have an overall "Substantial Confidence" performance rating, evaluations will continue (in ascending order by price) until one (1) offeror is rated with "Substantial Confidence" or, until all offerors are evaluated.

M-3.1 Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance evaluation considers each currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one (1) performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency and relevancy. Past performance references and data of either party to a joint venture or teaming arrangement will be considered to apply equally to the joint venture or teaming arrangement.

M-3.1.1 Recency: To be determined recent, offerors may submit up to five (5) project references that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within five (5) years from the date of this solicitation (SF 1442 Block 3).

Past performance information that does not meet this requirement will not be evaluated.

M-3.1.2 Relevance: To be determined relevant, an effort must be similar in scope and complexity of the project.

Please reference the Statement of Work (SOW) (see attachment C-1) to determine relevant projects that are similar in size, scope, magnitude and complexity of the subject project. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevance ratings in Table 1 shall be used when assessing offeror's efforts.

Table 1- Past Performance Relevance Ratings 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-3.1.3 Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 2. If teaming partners/joint ventures both have prime contractor experience then their past performance rating will be equal to a prime contractor. If the teaming partners/joint ventures have no prime contractor past performance, the past performance will be rated lower. If a prime contractor submits past performance of a proposed subcontractor, the past performance information will be rated lower than if submitted for the prime. In the case of offerors for which there is no or limited information on past contract, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and a performance confidence rating of "Neutral" will be assigned.

Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory confidence will be rated more favorably than a "Neutral" confidence rating.

Table 2- Performance Confidence Assessments 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

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

M-3.2 Price Evaluation: The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under

FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures found in FAR Part 15.404-1(b) to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Title Effective Date

52.225-12 Notice of Buy American Requirement- Construction Materials Under May 2014

Trade Agreements.

52.225-12 Notice of Buy American Requirement- Construction Materials Under May 2014 Trade Agreements. – (Alternate II)