5b - Ordering Procedures - PPT - Amd 1.docx

HOLLOMAN MACC ORDERING PROCEDURES Attachment to MACC SOW Holloman MACC FOPR #(tbd), Project Title: (tbd) Evaluation Methodology and Criteria

PRICE/PERFORMANCE TRADEOFF WITH TECHNICAL FACTORS

Dated: 1 Sep 2023

Basis for Award, Proposal Submission Requirements, and Evaluation Areas & Criteria

1. Basis for Award. Selection will be made in accordance with the methodology and criteria herein and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the basic Holloman MACC Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract and FAR Part 16.505. The procedures in FAR 15.3 do not apply. The government will utilize trade-off evaluation methodology called “Price/Past Performance Tradeoff with Technical Factors” where good past performance may be traded off for price. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation areas and the Fair Opportunity Decision Authority (FODA) determines that benefit to the Government of the higher priced, good past performer outweighs the price difference. The award decision will be based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation areas and Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP). The proposal(s) will be evaluated for cost/price after evaluations for technical acceptability have been completed. Technically unacceptable proposals may be eliminated from the competition and not evaluated for past performance or cost/price. Cost/Price evaluation will rely on adequate competition and will be conducted in accordance with paragraph 8 of this document. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and whose proposal is judged, based on the evaluation areas, to be the best value for the government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the fair opportunity selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Note to Government evaluators: This procedure establishes specific criteria for the evaluation of proposals in the basic contract Ordering Procedures. If these procedures are altered or edited substantially in subsequent FOPRs/Task Order Proposal Requests they will become subject to the clearance process established in 5301.9000(b)(6).

2. Communications and Interchanges after Receipt of Proposals. Offerors should propose their best business solution to this requirement; the Government intends to award without discussions/interchanges. The Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a Cost/Price and Technical standpoint. Communications are not discussions or interchanges and may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals, allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal, or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. Such communications shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or interchanges under the Fair Opportunity process with Offerors for the purpose of addressing deficiencies, errors, omissions or other mistakes in proposals. Interchanges may be conducted if in the Government’s best interest and if the Contracting Officer determines them necessary. Should interchanges be conducted, Offeror responses will be considered in making the selection decision. Proposal revisions, to include any final cost/price adjustments, will be requested simultaneously if interchanges are open. Offerors shall submit all proposal changes, technical, and cost/price, in response to Interchange Notices. No subsequent Final Proposal Revisions will be requested after the interchanges are closed.

3. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers. The Government will reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of commitments, takes exceptions to contract terms and conditions, or is unrealistically low in cost/price when compared to the Independent Government Estimate, or is inconsistent with the proposed design/build solution, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect a failure to comprehend the complexity of contract requirements or poses an unacceptable risk to contract performance.

4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as areas. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation areas or criteria.

5. Exceptions/Assumptions: If an offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation (to include the classified SOW and attachments), clearly identify each exception along with a complete explanation of why the exception was taken and the resulting benefit to the Government. The Government may consider any included Assumptions as an Offeror taking exception to the Government’s requirements which may result in a lower technical rating.

6. Post-Award Notices and Debriefings. Award notices and debriefings will be conducted in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(6). The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503(b)(1) as directed by FAR 16.505(b)(6)(i). Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.506 as directed by FAR 16.505(b)(6)(ii). Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.506 as applicable.

7. Proprietary information. Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation shall be clearly marked as such and will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection 27 of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 USC §§ 2101-2107, implemented at FAR 3.104). Any unmarked proprietary information will be considered releasable under the restrictions of the Freedom of Information Act.

8. Proposal Submissions. All volumes shall be submitted to Mr. John Seamon, Mr. x and Ms. x. Hard copies will NOT be accepted. Electronic submission of proposals is mandatory via email or via DoD Safe. Email addresses are john.seamon.1@us.af.mil, and anthony.overbay.1@us.af.mil. Use subject line: “Proposal for Holloman MACC FOPR # X TO 000X Project Title”. Offerors are cautioned to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure submission of a complete proposal. All Offeror and team member/subcontractor information must be incorporated into one coherent proposal to be considered complete. Failure to furnish a complete proposal at the time of proposal submission may result in an unacceptable proposal that the Government eliminates from consideration for award. The Government will not accept any changes to offerors’ proposals after the closing date of the solicitation (see FAR 15.208) for further information regarding late proposals). The instructions below prescribe the format of proposals, and describe the approach for the development and presentation of the proposed data. The proposal shall include all of the information requested in the specific instructions. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the TO SOW will be considered unacceptable.

9. Hard copy Address. Not applicable.

10. Proposal Format. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will enable the Government to easily understand and perform a thorough and fair evaluation. A complete proposal consists of the two (2) separate volumes as identified below. A complete proposal is required for a proposal to be considered responsive to this solicitation.

a. Volume I – Solution

i. Solution, 35% Design, and Requirement Understanding (30%)

ii. Salient Characteristics (70%)

b. Volume II – Price

i. Price

c. Volume III -- Past Performance

i. Recency

ii. Relevancy

iii. Performance

11. Page Format. Type size for text shall not be smaller than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 12 point font, single column, normal proportional spacing and one inch (1”) left and right margins. The font size requirements to not apply to charts; however, font sizes smaller than 8 point font should be used only when absolutely necessary. Text lines shall be single-spaced. Information submitted shall not exceed the page limits stated below for each volume.

12. Electronic Copies. Electronic copies shall be submitted via email using Microsoft Office Suite 2010 compatible format except for Volume II, Cost/Price – Fillable Pricing Sheet which shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2010 compatible format only. Offerors shall name files using standard naming conventions (e.g., filename.docx for MS Word, filename.xlsx for MS Excel, etc.). The files shall be named in an unambiguous manner, using plain language text, which facilitates the evaluator’s ease of accessing the files for evaluations.

13. Copies/Page Limit. Information submitted shall not exceed the page limits stated below for each volume. Evaluators will read only up to the maximum number of pages specified. If the page limit is exceeded, the pages in excess of the limit shall be removed and returned unread, to the offeror. Copy requirements and page limitations are as follows:

Table 1: (U) Copies and Page Limits

35% Design

12 Pages

Salient Characteristics

6 Pages

14. What counts as a page. A page shall be an 8.5” x 11” one-sided sheet of paper (minimum of 1” margins). If the page is double sided, it will count as 2 pages. Fold-outs shall be kept at a minimum, and shall be used only where a table or other graphic cannot be accommodated by a single 8.5” x 11” page. Fold-outs shall not exceed 11” x 17” and shall count as two pages. All material shall be contained within the page limit identified for each volume. All appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, etc., are included in the page count.

15. Pages Not Included in the Page Count. Covers for volumes, tables of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables will not be included in the page count if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, e.g., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

16. Technical Volume Contents. In the technical volume, offerors shall describe their technical approach to meeting the Task Order SOW and their mission understanding. Offerors shall also describe the knowledge, skills and abilities of the personnel they will provide to perform work under this task order to accomplish the tasks described in the Task Order SOW. The Technical Proposal shall not contain any cost/price data. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities. Aspects of the offeror’s proposed technical proposal that the Evaluation Team (ET) identify may become part of the winning offeror’s contact, when awarded, and thereby will become part of the terms and conditions, of the life of the contract.

17. Cost Volume Contents. In the cost volume, offerors shall provide a work breakdown structure, Bases of Estimates, statement of estimating assumptions and narrative descriptions of their estimating methodologies for direct labor, materials and ODCs, their company disclosure statement for indirect cost pools and their allocation bases, a filled in Pricing Sheet (FOPR attachment), a resource-loaded project schedule and spend plan. Offeror’s may use their own cost/price spreadsheet as long as the top level summaries mirror the format of the fillable Pricing Sheet attached to the FOPR, and all formulas are unlocked and the sheet is manipulable.

18. Past Performance Volume Contents. In this volume offerors shall provide a summary table of all contracts, followed by narrative pages (single page per contract is desired) of information for each contract, using the format provided in the attachment. Narratives should explain how each contract is recent and relevant in accordance with the definitions of recency and relevancy provided in these instructions. Narratives should also explain how well the individual performance criteria pertaining to this project, if applicable/provided in these instructions, were met. Offerors shall also provide the point of contact information for the Government or customer project manager who would have knowledge of their performance as a means of verification for the Government evaluation team. If a Past Performance Questionnaire is provided as an attachment, the Offeror shall send it to the customer project manager (or other person with knowledge of the contractor’s performance) for each contract with instructions to return it straight to the Government at the address identified in the PPQ, and NOT back to the Offeror.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA

1. Evaluation Methodology – Price/ Performance Tradeoff with Technical Factors. The PPT strategy permits recognition of the good performer and thereby minimizes the risk of awarding to a contractor that will not perform at an acceptable level. A contractor that delivers what the contract requires without excessive cost growth due to poor assessment of the technical requirement or extensive follow-up effort is clearly delivering better value than a contractor that charges essentially the same price, yet needs constant surveillance to ensure performance. In short, the PPT process removes marginal and unsatisfactory performers in favor of offerors with a proven record of providing quality products and/or services, on time, at affordable prices. PPT also allows the FODA discretion in awarding to higher rated performers over lower rated performers if the price differential is warranted and considered to be the best value.

2. Process.

a. The offeror’s proposed technical solution will be evaluated first for acceptable/unacceptable. At the same time, the price will be verified for consistency with the technical solution. Next, past performance will be evaluated and rated. Finally an integrated assessment of all evaluation areas will be conducted to identify the best value proposal in accordance with the criteria outlined below.

b. To assign a technical solution rating of acceptable/unacceptable, Government evaluators will divide the solution into two areas, as follows:

i. Solution, 35% Design, and the offeror’s understanding of the requirement

ii. Salient Characteristics

c. Government evaluators will then assign a rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” each criteria under both areas, based on definitions found later in this section. An unacceptable rating in any area will result in an overall unacceptable rating, which renders an offer ineligible for award.

3. Importance of Price. Past Performance and Technical are significantly more important than price, however price will contribute substantially to the award decision. The greater the equality of proposals for areas other than price, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the government.

4. The government will evaluate the solution of all offerors determined responsive to the solicitation. Offers received after the due date for proposals will not be evaluated. The Government will evaluate an offeror’s written solution proposal to determine if the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements of the SOW. Acceptability will be rated using the approach described below. Any proposal that receives a rating of “unacceptable” for any technical solution criteria will be determined “Unacceptable” and the government reserves the right to stop evaluation at this point unless only one proposal is received, or it is in the government’s best interest to continue evaluation for the purposes of adequate price competition.

5. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL SOLUTION

a. Specific Criterion 1: Solution, 35% Design, and Requirement Understanding (30%). To be rated “acceptable” in this area, the proposal must demonstrate the following:

i. The proposed solution, including the CSOW if applicable, meets the Government’s objectives in accordance with the SOO (or SOW, if applicable).

ii. The 35% design meet the requirements identified for a 35% Design in the MACC contract SOW.

iii. The solution and 35% design demonstrate a clear understanding of the Government’s requirement.

b. Specific Criterion 2: Salient Characteristics (70%). To be rated “acceptable” in this area, the proposal must demonstrate the following:

i. Total Cooling Capacity: meets or exceeds 10,000 BTUs per 1,000 square feet of useable Square Footage

ii. Useable Square Footage: meets or exceeds 10,000 square feet

iii. Load bearing per square inch: meets or exceeds 600 lbs/square inch

iv. Aesthetics and Finishes: meet or exceed the Holloman Design Standard for a category C dormitory

v. Commencement Time and Performance Duration: Construction will commence within 60 days of 100% design approval; PoP duration will be 150 days or less

vi. Energy Efficiency: meets or exceeds Silver XO2 standards

vii. Environmental Impact: proposal demonstrates a thorough, well-documented and properly coordinated and approved plan

viii. Warranty: meets or exceeds SOO objective

6. TECHNICAL RATING METHODOLOGY. Technical Areas will be rated “acceptable” or “unacceptable” as follows:

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

a. Specific Criterion 1: Solution, 35% Design and Requirement Understanding

Table 3 – Proposed Technical Solution, 35% Design and Understanding of Mission

b. Specific Criterion 2: Salient Characteristics

(1) (Sub Criterion Example) Cooling Efficiency:

Table 5 – Cooling Efficiency

(2) ((Sub Criterion Example) Useable Square Footage

Table 6 - Useable Square Footage

(3) (Sub Criterion Example) Continue as required

7. FACTOR 2 - PRICE

a. Price will be verified by the Government evaluators as follows:

b. The proposed cost estimate is consistent with the proposed solution—labor categories are appropriate and not too junior, labor hours are appropriate and not too few, labor rates are in accordance with appropriate wage determinations; material types and quantities are appropriate and sufficient to complete the work to include re-work and scrap; equipment and other direct costs are appropriate and sufficient to complete the work. If labor is to be brought in from outside the local area, travel and per deim costs are included and appropriate. Applicable indirects are included and appropriate.

c. Proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). If the Government sees a wide variation in proposed contract line item prices, the evaluation board will be informed as soon as possible during the initial evaluation of proposals so the appropriate personnel may seek clarity through offeror exchanges. Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

d. Cost data provided with a proposal will be considered “other than cost and pricing data”. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all CLINs to establish the Total Verified Price.

8. FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. 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.

d. 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.

e. 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. Specific relevancy criteria are stated in the table below:

· Total magnitude

· Construction disciplines under NAICS code 236220

· performed as the prime contractor vs sub contractor, and

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

f. 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.

g. 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”.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

* This method may be used without Technical Factors, appropriately edited, at the sole discretion of the Contracting OfficerSeamon, John T CIV STRATCOM JWAC (US) | JWAC