SBOS_Section_M_0001.pdf

N6274223R3601

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

A. Selection Factors/Best Value Selection

1. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to negotiate with offerors in the competitive range; and to award the contract to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value—the proposal most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

2. As stated in the solicitation, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In addition, 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.

3. The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. The Government considers it to be in its best interest to allow consideration of award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering price and non-price evaluation factors. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest non-price rated offeror. Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposal offering the best value to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decision.

4. Any proposal found to have a deficiency in meeting the stated solicitation requirements or performance objectives will be considered ineligible for award, unless the deficiency is corrected through discussions. An Unacceptable rating in any of the non-cost/price factors and/or sub-factors will result in an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the non-cost/price factors, unless corrected through discussions. Proposals may be found to have either a significant weakness or multiple weaknesses that impact either the individual factor rating or the overall rating for the proposal. The evaluation report must document the evaluation board’s assessment of the identified weakness(s) and the associated risk to successful contract performance resulting from the weakness(s). This assessment must provide the rationale for proceeding to award without discussions

B. Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors

The relative order of importance of the non-price evaluation factors is as follows: the technical factors (Factor 2 – Corporate Experience, Factor 3 – Technical Approach and Factor 4 – Safety) are of equal importance to each other and, when combined are equal in importance to Factor 1 – Past Performance. When the proposal is evaluated as a whole, the technical factors and past performance/performance confidence assessment factors combined (i.e., the non-price evaluation factors) are significantly more important than price.

C. Price Evaluation Factors

1. The proposal will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but shall be evaluated for completeness and price reasonableness for the entire contract performance period (mobilization, base, all option periods, extension of services, and demobilization). Proposal’s price for evaluation purposes shall be Recurring Firm Fixed Price and Non-Recurring (IDIQ) Effort. The Government intends to evaluate all options and has included the provision FAR

52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) in Section M of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The following will be evaluated:

a. Completeness: All information/data required by the RFP has been submitted, tracks to the PWS requirements and supports the offer.

b. Price/Cost Reasonableness: Prices/costs and the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity rates and prices/costs are fully justified and supported and are considered fair and reasonable to the government.

Reasonableness may also be determined by comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP, comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate, comparison of proposed prices with available historical information; and/or comparison of market survey results.

2. Equipment. Because the Government will not take title to contractor furnished equipment, the accounting/billing method shall be through depreciation or a use rate of contractor provided equipment.

3. Prices unbalanced between the various option years, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for rejecting a proposal on the basis that a price would not be reasonable to the Government.

4. The price proposal volume will also be evaluated to ensure the completion of the representations and certifications in Section K of the RFP and the inclusion and submission of other information required.

5. The Offeror’s demonstrated ability to maintain government approved financial management systems in the following areas will be evaluated: accounting, estimating, purchasing, government property management systems, and cost accounting standards (CAS) as applicable. These Systems are approved by cognizant contract administration offices such as the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). The Offeror will be evaluated for FAR Part 9 responsibility matters and the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to provide adequate, reliable cost or pricing data. An Offeror’s proposal may be deemed less favorable or rejected for lack of demonstrated ability to adequately maintain its Financial Management Systems.

6.5. In accordance with FAR 9.104-1 responsibility determination, Offerors will be evaluated to ensure that they have the financial capability to perform the contract given the magnitude of the proposed work.

7.6. The Government will not accept any assumptions in the Offeror’s cost proposal.

D. Non-Price Factors

Factor 1 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror performed on recent relevant projects submitted under this factor and Factor 2, Corporate Experience, and on other recent relevant contracts documented in known sources.

There are three aspects of the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The second aspect is to determine the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance, Table 32. The third aspect is to evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance and how well the offeror performed on the projects, Table 43. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from other sources on how well the Offeror performed on those contracts.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which past performance evaluations and all other past performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g. CPARS, FAPIIS or PPQ(s) (Attachment JL-3), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and information obtained from any other source) reflect a general trend of satisfactory performance in areas that will assist the Government in determining whether an Offeror will successfully perform the required effort such as but not limited to:

- Technical/Quality of Product or Service

- Schedule/Timeliness of Performance or Delivery

- Cost Control and Management

- Management and/or Business Relations

- Regulatory Compliance

- Other (as annotated in the applicable CPAR)

In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past contract performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and will be assigned a confidence rating of “Neutral.” However, an Offeror with favorable recent relevant past performance may be considered more favorably than an Offeror with no past performance information.

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience

The proposal must completely address all submission requirements in Section L, Factor 2. The assessment of the Offeror’s recent and relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of this solicitation. The minimum standard for Corporate Experience has been met when the offeror has demonstrated adequate experience in successfully performing at least three (3) recent relevant multi-function projects with a value of $15 million or more per year and two (2) recent relevant single or multiple-function projects with a value of $4 million or more per year and demonstrating relevant experience in 0501050 – Airfield Facilities, 1502000 – Facility Investment, and 1800000 – Environmental. Beyond the minimum standards, the Government will consider the depth and breadth of the relevant experience, focusing on performance of technical specifications to be performed under this contract, to evaluate the level of risk of unsuccessful performance. Offerors will be evaluated on recent relevant experience performed by the Offeror to determine indicators of expected performance. The Government will take into consideration the complexity and quantity of experiences.

Evaluation of corporate experience as listed in Attachment JL-4, will consider: (1) depth (extent of experience in each Annex/Sub-Annex); (2) breadth (expertise across all Annexes/Sub-Annexes); and (3) multi-function management (experience managing/coordinating work across multiple Annexes/Sub-Annexes). The Offeror shall be evaluated on its experience in planning and executing the required services.

Offerors possessing experience in complex, multi-function support service contracts, experience in the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) Area of Responsibility or other overseas location, excluding the United States, may be considered more favorably. Offerors that demonstrate depth and breadth of experience and multi-functional management experience in a greater number of Annexes/Sub-Annexes from the list below will likely be considered more favorably. Lack of experience in one or more Annexes/Sub-Annexes from the list below will likely result in a lower rating for this factor. Lack of experience in 0501050 – Airfield Facilities, 1502000 – Facility Investment, and 1800000 – Environmental will result in an unacceptable rating for this factor.

Annex 5 Air Operations 0501050 Airfield Facilities 0501070 Passenger Terminal and Cargo Handling

Annex 10 Supply 1001000 Material Management

Annex 14 Housing 1401000 Family Housing 1402000 Unaccompanied Housing

Annex 15 Facilities Support 1501000 Facility Management

1502000 Facility Investment 1503010 Custodial 1503020 Pest Control 1503030 Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) 1503040 Other (Swimming Pool) 1503050 Grounds Maintenance and Landscaping

Annex 16 Utilities 1606001 Water (Overseas)

Annex 17 Base Support Vehicles and Equipment Annex 18 Environmental

Notes for Factors 1 and 2 located in Section L apply for Section M.

Factor 3 – Technical Approach

Offerors will be evaluated on its understanding of, and approach to, accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of the requirements set forth in the performance objectives/standards contained within the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The proposal will be evaluated on the clarity and reasonableness of the staffing approach to accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements, including lines of management authority, supervision, span of control, and accountability. The evaluation will also include the following relationships: between/across technical Annexes/Sub-Annexes and between the prime and its subcontractors.

The proposal will also be evaluated on the demonstration of an efficient and effective technical approach to accomplishing the work and mitigating risks. The evaluation will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to handling surge/contingency operations and fluctuations in mission requirements. Finally, the proposal will be evaluated on the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the entire scope of work through a comprehensive and realistic allocation of resources by Annex/Sub-Annex that achieves efficient and effective performance. Approaches that demonstrate greater understanding of complexity and magnitude, lower risks to the government of substandard performance, and greater capacity to handle surge/contingency operations will be considered more favorably.

Factor 4 - Safety

The Government is seeking to determine that the Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to safety and that the Offeror plans to properly manage and implement safety procedures for itself and its subcontractors. The evaluation will collectively consider the DART rate, TCR, Technical Approach to Safety, and other sources of information available to the Government as part of such collective evaluation. The Board will evaluate the DART rates and TCR rates to determine if the Offeror has demonstrated a history of safe work practices taking into account any negative trends and extenuating circumstances that impact the rating.

1. DART Rate: The Board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or

Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing DART rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk

(HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

d. This chart correlates the DART rate to the level of risk:

Risk DART Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 1.0 Low Risk From 1.0 to 1.99 Moderate Risk From 2.0 to 2.99 High Risk From 3.0 to 4.0 Extremely High Risk Greater than 4.0

2. TCR Rate: The Board will evaluate trends over the last five years considering changes that take it from one risk level (or more) to the next up or down. Negative trends occurring above moderate risk levels require the offeror to provide a detailed explanation that includes any corrective actions taken for improvement.

a. Missing data without an explanation is considered a deficiency.

b. Declining trends that push the risk levels from Moderate Risk (MR) or higher to Low Risk (LR) or

Very Low Risk (VLR) would indicate a strength.

c. An increasing TCR rate trend could be considered a weakness (i.e. MR or better to High Risk (HR) or Extremely High Risk EHR)) if an acceptable explanation is not provided for any trends that rise above Moderate.

d. This chart correlates the TCR rate to the level of risk:

Risk TCR Rate Very Low Risk Less Than 2.49 Low Risk From 2.5 to 3.49 Moderate Risk From 3.5 to 4.49 High Risk From 4.5 to 5.99 Extremely High Risk Greater than 6.0

3. The Technical Approach to Safety Narrative. To determine the degree to which the Offeror:

a. Describes a viable SMS that addresses elements; such as Management/Leadership involvement, Employee involvement, Hazard prevention, Hazard control, Worksite analysis, and Safety and health training, to include the standard(s) used to benchmark the SMS.

b. Describes a methodical process of evaluating subcontractor’s safety performance in their selection process.

c. Describes a logical management plan to hold themselves and their subcontractors accountable for adhering to the safety requirements of the contract.

d. The Technical Approach to Safety narrative shall be limited to two (2) single-sided pages or one

(1) double-sided page. Information on pages beyond this will not be considered.

4. The Government reserves the right to review other available sources (public/Government internal) of information. These may include but are not limited to Singapore Ministry of Manpower data, OSHA data, NAVFAC’s Contractor Incident Reporting System (CIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS), etc.

F. Adjectival Ratings/Descriptions

1. The following are the non-cost/price ratings to be used in the evaluation of the proposal for all factors except Factor 1, Past Performance:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding (O)

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 (G)

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 (A)

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

Marginal (M)

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

Unacceptable (U) 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.

Table 2 Safety Rating Method

(Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method) Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding (O) 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 (G) 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 (A) Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

Unacceptable (U) 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.

2. The following ratings will be used for past performance relevancy ratings and confidence assessments in the evaluation of Factor 1, Past Performance:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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.

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

M.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government intends to evaluate all proposals received and to award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offerors initial proposal shall contain the Offerors best terms from a cost/price and non-cost/price (technical and past performance) standpoint. However, if discussions are deemed necessary to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, discussions will be held with those Offerors within a competitive range. The Government 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.

M.3 ENFORCEABILITY OF PROPOSAL

The proposal must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Government will rely on such information in the award of a contract. By submission of the offer, the Offeror agrees that all items proposed (e.g. subcontractors, technical approach, methods of operation, resources, etc.) will be utilized for the duration of the contract and any substitutions shall require prior Contracting Officer’s approval.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990