MATOC ATTACHMENT 10 - Section M-Evaluation Factors.docx

ATTACHMENT 10

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology. This competitive acquisition will be conducted using the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection procedures, conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, DFARS 215.3 and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing Offerors’ past performance information will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price considerations.

By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) offer, if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another Offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

B. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award five (5) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite quantity (IDIQ), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MTOCs) under this solicitation. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Awards will be made to the responsible Offerors whose proposals conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by section L of this solicitation) and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph II below.

C. Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon the evaluation factors described below:

Factor I - Past Performance Factor II - Price

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. Factor I - Past Performance

Past Performance Factor: The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on an Offeror based on (i) the references provided by the Offeror, (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Attachment 6), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government (e.g., the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)). If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with Section L does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(A) Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, somewhat relevant, relevant, and very relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets contract specification requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the Offeror’s adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

(B) The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

(C) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last five (5) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the five

(5) year period.

(D) Relevant contracts, performance efforts involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Present/past performance efforts involved projects of the same scope, magnitude, and complexities this solicitation requires. The Offeror submitted three (3) recent efforts which demonstrate its ability to perform multiple construction projects. Each effort must include all five (5) of the following disciplines: Architectural, Electrical, Structural, Civil, and Mechanical. The total contract price of each effort shall be greater than $750K.

Relevant Present/past performance efforts involved projects of similar scope, magnitude, and complexities this solicitation requires. The Offeror submitted two (2) recent efforts which demonstrate its ability to perform multiple construction projects. Each effort must include at least four (4) of the following disciplines: Architectural, Electrical, Structural, Civil, or Mechanical. The total contract price of each effort shall be greater than $500K.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance efforts involved projects with some scope, magnitude, or complexities this solicitation requires. The Offeror submitted two (2) recent efforts which demonstrate its ability to perform multiple construction projects. Each effort must include at least three (3) of the following disciplines: Architectural, Electrical, Structural, Civil, or Mechanical. The total contract price of each effort shall be greater than $250K.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude and of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, all performance fails to meet one of the three relevancy ratings: “Very Relevant”, “Relevant” or “Somewhat Relevant”.

(E) Sources. The Government may seek relevant performance information from the Offeror in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the Offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation may take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company, or joint ventures of the parent company, when:

(1) The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

(2) When the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed effort.

(F) Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance meets the specification requirements of previous efforts, the assessment may consider things such as: the Offeror’s history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

When a relevant and recent performance record indicates performance problems, the Government may consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

(G) Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the Offeror to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as described below in Table 3.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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 reasonably be assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Offerors with no recent and relevant performance history or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the “Neutral Confidence” rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. A “Satisfactory” or “Substantial Confidence” may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

B. Volume II, Factor II - Price Evaluation. The Government will rank all offers by price. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

(A) Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Part 15.305. The Offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of the AF Form 3052 for Construction Project Titled, Replace Chiller Building 1095.

(B) In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(C) Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness; therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, Offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness. Contracting Officer may request submission of certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

Performance Price Trade-off. After the initial evaluation of each Offeror’s price, the Government will rank all Offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP. Next, to establish the pool of approximately five (5) of the most qualified Offerors; the Government will conduct Past Performance Evaluations for Offerors with the lowest TEPs. If the Offerors with the lowest TEPs are assessed “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence ratings, these offers will be determined to represent the best value to the Government and no other offers will be evaluated or considered.

If the Offerors with the lowest TEPs, do not have “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment ratings, the next lowest TEP offer(s) will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until one or more Offeror(s) is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating or until all Offerors are considered.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated assessment, best value award decision which will include the Offeror(s) with “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating (if found) and all offers with TEPs lower than the TEP of the Offeror(s) with the Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating(s); unless it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct discussions.

For example: Eight (8) offers are received; the Offerors with the first, second and third lowest TEP offers have performance assessment ratings less than Substantial Confidence, but the Offerors with the fourth, fifth, six, seventh and eighth lowest TEP has a performance assessment rating of Substantial Confidence. The SSA would make an integrated assessment, best value award decision among those eight (8) Offerors.

The Government intends to award approximately five (5) IDIQ/MATOCs without discussions with respective Offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Section)