4 - Section M - Amd 1.docx

Holloman MACC; Solicitation #FA4801-23-R-0001

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) with Acceptable Past Performance source selection conducted 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) and DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 20 Aug 2022. The Government will select the proposals with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposals 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) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub factors, to represent the lowest priced technically acceptable proposals with acceptable past performance.

1. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss or revise their proposals. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

M-2. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED: The Government intends to award a minimum of six (6) and a maximum of ten (10) contracts from this 100% Small Business Set-aside for the Holloman Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC). Note: The Government reserves the right to award up to three (3) additional contracts to Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses.

M-3. CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

M-4. EVALUATION: For efficiency purposes, the Government will evaluate up to a minimum of the six (6) lowest price offers for technical acceptability. Should the lowest price offers not receive an acceptable technical rating, the process will continue in order of price until at least 6 offerors with acceptable technical ratings are identified. If two or less proposals are received, the Government may proceed with evaluating only those proposals. The Government may determine an offer unacceptable if the proposed prices are materially unbalanced, which is defined as an acceptable total evaluated price but the price of one or more line items is significantly under or overstated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

1. Evaluation Factors: Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror. This will be determined based upon evaluation of the following factors:

0. Price

0. Technical Capability (with sub factors – see below)

0. Past Performance

Factor 1 - Price:

1. Initially, the Government shall rank offers according to their proposed price for the demonstration project, from lowest to highest price. The Government will calculate a “Total Evaluated Price” (TEP) as follows: The TEP to the Government will be calculated for each offeror by adding the design and construction price provided on the Project Bid Schedule. This priceTEP will determine the “Lowest Price” portion of the LPTA evaluation. Bond and New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax will NOT be included in this calculation.

1. 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, there is adequate price competition, no additional price information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required.

1. If at any time during the evaluation 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 and affordability of the price. If requested, this cost data may require certification.

Note: Certain cost data, other than certified cost or pricing data, is requested under Technical Sub Factor 2, Demonstration Project, as described elsewhere in sections L and M

Factor 2 – Technical:

1. Number evaluated. The evaluation team will evaluate a minimum of six (6) of the lowest priced proposals for technical acceptability. The basis for acceptable/unacceptable is established in the criteria below.

1. Pass/Fail. The government technical evaluation team will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1. Sub factors. In assigning the ratings above, the government technical evaluation team will evaluate the following technical sub factors:

2. Construction Management & Capability

2. Demonstration Project Proposal

1. Sub factor 1: Construction Management & Capability. To clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation, the proposal must demonstrate that the offeror possesses ALL of the following:

0. Financial capacity, bonding, and business relationships to successfully perform two simultaneous construction projects with a combined value of $11.5M. The proposal must demonstrate access to cash and/or lines of credit totaling at least $100,000.00. The proposal must demonstrate a minimum bonding capacity of $5.75M per project/$11.5M aggregate; and…

0. An established relationship with a design (A-E) firm, a construction equipment supplier, a construction material supplier, and an independent testing lab for construction materials. Relationships may be demonstrated by a letter from each entity signed by a vice president or higher; and…

3. Experience Capability to performing using a design/build approach, . This may be demonstrated by describing a design/build construction project that you successfully performed as prime contractor within the last 3 years; and…

3. Capability to perform at least one (1) of the six-digit construction disciplines under each of the 3-digit NAICS codes (236, 237, and 238) under NAICS Sector 23 (Construction), as a prime or subcontractor, such as construction, alteration or repair of roads, buildings, structures, utilities, plumbing, roofing, paving, grading, excavating, or demolition; and…

3. A staffing plan that identifies program management, engineering, skilled labor, and other necessary expertise who meet the minimum experience and qualifications in the table below, and describes how these personnel can successfully perform two or more simultaneous construction projects on Holloman AFB:

Minimum Qualifications to be technically acceptable in this area:

Note: The personnel noted above need not be permanently based on Holloman AFB.

And…

3. A company program manager who can be physically present at Holloman AFB within 6 hours of an emergency or contingency; and…

3. An established, systematic approach for managing the contract to include cost, schedule and quality management, procurement management, safety management, environmental management, and logistics management; and…

3. Capability to perform construction on or near a U.S. Air Force airfield, including airfield access requirements and airfield operations; and…

3. An established capability to mobilize and manage a project schedule to begin construction within 30 days of 100% design approval/NTP, and minimize delays, demonstrating knowledge of Holloman AFB visitor access requirements and background investigations to ensure timely availability of contractor personnel, craftsmen, and laborers, including reach-back capability for situations where such skilled personnel may be absent or unavailable due to high volumes of work in queue. If reaching back to other localities for skilled personnel, an established capability to ensure adequate level of skill/quality of personnel/craftsmen is clearly demonstrated; and…

3. An established, systematic approach to project estimating/bidding (which includes a narrative description of the means/methods the contractor will use to estimate this MACC solicitation’s demonstration project’s costs, and will use for future LPTA task order competitions/Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests (FOPRs), if any, to estimate costs, with and/or without a government-provided design, so that the cost/price remains viable through the entire design/review process and into the construction phase) that identifies areas of cost risk and effectively manages or mitigates that risk to minimize scope/cost growth resulting from change orders, requests for equitable adjustment, and claims. In addition, the proposal demonstrates knowledge of current and potential areas of cost risk in the construction industry stemming from COVID-19- era supply chain and or inflation issues, discusses mitigation strategies, and defines the Offeror’s approach to addressing related cost risk in its cost estimating and pricing of proposals under this MACC;

3.

3. A two-page (maximum) narrative describing the contractor’s overall Quality Control approach to the basic IDIQ MACC and how it will be applied to individual projects; the narrative includes the method and frequency of inspections, names, qualifications and experience of QA personnel, scope of their responsibilities and authority, and clearly states that QA personnel are separate and distinct from, and are not supervised by, on site project management or superintendent personnel; the narrative clearly describes how the QA approach will be utilized to mitigate risks related to projects on or near the airfield.

1. Sub-Factor 2: Demonstration Project Proposal. To clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation, the proposal must include ALL of the following:

4. Design: a formal design is not required but the proposal includes drawings, narratives, etc 3565% design that:

0. Clearly dDemonstrates understanding of and accounts for all the required elements listed in Attachment #1, MACC Statement of Work and Attachment# 10, Demonstration Project Statement of Work;

0. Is free of major errors or omissions

The following table/definitions will be used to verify that the design is a 65% design:

Phases of Design Reviews

(Stamped)

100%

Purpose

design milestone Forms the basis of the contractor's field performance requirements and shall be distributed to the Government, base stakeholders, and the contractor's sub- contractors

Drawings

Specifications

and…

4. Project Management: Includes a plan that:

0. Describes how the contractor will manage the overall project schedule through both the design phase and the construction phase, and how the contractor will communicate/interface with the Government to ensure the Government’s concerns are addressed.

0. Clearly identifies members of the design-build team by their title, to include major subcontractors, describes the roles of each in the execution of the project, and is in consonance with the management approach and staffing plan provided under sub factor 1.

0. Demonstrates executable performance time for both the design and construction phases and appropriately charts the schedule on Attachment #11, AF Form 3064, Progress Schedule, and AF Form 66, Schedule of Material Submittals. The AF Form 3064 properly assigns percentages to work performed in all divisions required in the execution of the project, and accounts for long lead items, design time, Government submittal review time, and final inspection and punch list corrections within the performance period specified in the Demonstration Project SOW. The AF Form 66 is populated with appropriate items for submittal; and…

1. Estimating Capability: Includes a filled-in Construction Cost Estimate Spreadsheet AF Form 3052, Construction Cost Estimate Breakdown , for the Demonstration Project and a narrative description demonstrating/illustrating that the means/methods the contractor used to estimate this MACC solicitation’s demonstration project’s costs so that the cost/price remains viable through the entire design/review process and into the construction phase), and that:

0. Demonstrates the offeror’s capability to estimate project requirements and materials quantities accurately.

0. Breaks out Direct Material quantities, Direct Labor categories and hours, Other Direct quantities/hours, and explains the estimating methodologies/tools used

0. Reflects a clear understanding of the requirement

0. Accounts for all major elements of work,

0. Is consistent with the offeror’s proposed technical approach, and

0. If awarded the project, the cost/price most likely, in the opinion of the government evaluation team, would not increase during the design and review process

, in sufficient detail to enable the Government evaluation team to determine the proposed materials and labor:

0. reflect a clear understanding of the requirement

0. account for all major elements of work, and

0. are consistent with the offeror’s proposed technical approach

Note: The offeror is responsible for obtaining any forms required for evaluation, whether or not they are provided as an attachment to the solicitation.

Note: Failure to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Government evaluation team, any sub paragraph stated under the sub factors above shall render the entire sub factor unacceptable. To be found “technically acceptable” overall, a proposal must be found to be acceptable for BOTH technical sub factors described above.

Factor 3 – Past Performance (Acceptable/Unacceptable):

1. Evaluation Process - The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing construction services that meet the customer’s needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance on individual projects, focusing on performance that is relevant to the MACC.

1. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

1. Joint venture partners’ past performance shall be part of the aggregate performance evaluation. Past performance of other teaming partners or subcontractors shall not be considered.

1. Recency Assessment - An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been completed or performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Efforts that have not yet been completed shall have had at least six (6) months of performance prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails these conditions shall not be evaluated.

1. Relevance Assessment - The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the effort relates to the MACC in terms of magnitude and complexity. To be relevant, the effort must have:

0. exceeded $500,000250,000 in total magnitude,

0. consisted primarily of one or more construction disciplines under NAICS code 236220,

0. performed as the prime contractor, and

0. work site was located on a DoD installation or a private complex with controlled access and 100% contractor personnel identification verification

1. Performance Quality: The Government may consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts related in the CCASS or similar systems, interviews with Government customers and, as applicable, commercial clients. It may also include information obtained from other sources known to the Government. The review may result in positive or adverse findings. 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. Contractors shall be afforded the opportunity to respond to any adverse findings that they have not had an opportunity to address previously.

1. Past Performance Ratings: As a result of the past performance evaluation offerors will receive a rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” The evaluation is based on recency, relevance, and a demonstrated record of performance. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following ratings:

Table A-2. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable 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 so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”.

M-5. TRADEOFFS: Tradeoffs will not be considered. This is a “Lowest Priced - Technically Acceptable with Acceptable Past Performance” evaluation.

M-6. AWARD

1. Award without discussion: The government intends to evaluate proposals without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, it is imperative that each offeror submit their best terms with their initial proposal. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions the Contracting Officer will notify offerors as required. If used, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1. Responsibility: The government intends to award a minimum of six (6) and maximum of ten (10) contracts to Offerors determined responsible as defined in FAR 9.104-1 and whose proposal provides the best value to the government in accordance with the LPTA with Acceptable Past Performance evaluation approach defined in this solicitation. Note: The Government reserves the right to award up to three (3) additional contracts to Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses.

1. Subsequent projects will be competed among the awarded IDIQ contract holders using the contract’s fair opportunity ordering procedures. Task Orders will be awarded in accordance with the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request and the basic contract.

(End of Section M) Holloman MACC; Solicitation #FA4801-23-R-0001