5c - Ordering Procedures - BTV - Amd 1.docx

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

BEST TECHNICAL VALUE

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 “Best Technical Value” where technical 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 technical solution 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 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, 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. Area 3 -- Price

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.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA

1. Evaluation Methodology – Best Technical Value. Instead of seeking the lowest price with the lowest acceptable level of performance (as in a LPTA approach), a Best Technical Value (aka “Lowest Price per Technical Value) approach seeks to identify the proposed solution with the best price/performance ratio. It allows the Government to trade a little extra price for more performance, or technical value, with maximum objectivity, yet simply, by using a formula to identify the lowest ratio, which is also the biggest bang for the buck, more bounce for the ounce, and the best technical value to the Government.

2. Process.

a. The offeror’s proposed solution will be evaluated first and assigned a Total Value (TV) score. Next, the Total Verified Price (TVP) will be divided by the TV to calculate the “Value Price” which is also the price/performance ration. The lowest Value Price represents the best technical value to the Government.

b. To assign a Total Value score, Government evaluators will first review divide the solution into two “specific criteria” and weight their importance to the Government. The two specific criteria, and their weights, are:

i. Solution, 35% Design, and the offeror’s understanding of the requirement (30%)

ii. Salient Characteristics (70%)

c. Government evaluators will then assign numerical ratings to each sub criteria under each specific criteria, based on definitions found later in this section. An unacceptable rating in either specific criterion will result in an overall unacceptable rating, which renders an offer ineligible for award.

3. Importance of Price. The solution is 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 in paragraphs 5 & 6 below. Any offeror that receives a score of zero (0) for any 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. An offeror’s proposal must receive a score of at least a three (3) for each criteria to be rated “Acceptable” and be eligible for award. (See rating definitions in Tables 3 and 4.)

5. Value ratings are determined based on the Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies (as defined below in Table 4) of the offeror’s solution for meeting the government’s requirement.

6. Scoring Methodology. The scoring for this fair opportunity selection will be conducted as shown in the table below.

Table 2 – Example scoring methodology

Lowest Price

$33,125

$29,500

$26,736

7. Solution, 35% Design, and Requirement Understanding (30%). The government will evaluate the following:

a. Does the proposed solution meet the Government’s objectives in accordance with the SOO?

b. Does the 35% design meet the requirements identified for a 35% Design in the MACC contract SOW?

c. Does the solution and 35% design demonstrate a clear understanding of the Government’s requirement?

8. Salient Characteristics (70%). The government will evaluate the following:

1. (insert applicable sub criteria) Example: Total Cooling Capacity: meets or exceeds 10,000 BTUs per 1,000 square feet of useable Square Footage

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

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

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

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

6. Example: Energy Efficiency: meets or exceeds Silver XO2 standards

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

8. Example: Warranty: meets or exceeds SOO objective

9. TECHNICAL RATING METHODOLOGY. Technical Areas will be rated using a technical trade off method where element of the technical approach and/or each Knowledge, Skills and Ability (KSA) is given a score of 0, 3, 4, or 5, based on the following:

a. Specific Criterion 1: Solution, 35% Design and Requirement Understanding (30%)

Table 3 – Proposal Technical Rating Area 1 Technical Approach and Understanding of Mission

Table 4 – Technical Evaluation Descriptors

b. Specific Criterion 2: Salient Characteristics (70%)

(1) (Example) Cooling Efficiency: Each element in paragraphs 6a(i)(ii) and (iii) above will receive a numerical score based on the criteria shown in Table 5 below. The scores for each evaluation criteria in this section will be averaged to compute the overall score for this area.

Table 5 – Cooling Efficiency from para 6a

(2) (Example) Useable Square Footage

Table 6 - Useable Square Footage

(3) Continue sub criteria as required (not all need be used)

10. 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.